• You don't like snow? Turn it off here:

Feedback thread about multi fort battles :-D

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Basically I fear that what is going to happen when we get an attack set equivalent to Cortina, is no one will hit anything - so no one will have fun, not just the attackers not enjoying themselves anymore.
I don't suggest Cortina level Attacker Tank set, never did, but with incompetent LCM.. Yea.
What I would like to see from a formula change, is everyone hits more, but less damage for leadership :-D
You and me brother.
My signature still stands. But you know..
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
Basically I fear that what is going to happen when we get an attack set equivalent to Cortina, is no one will hit anything - so no one will have fun, not just the attackers not enjoying themselves anymore.

better in my opinion than getting slaughtered every attack. that or just reduce tower bonuses

that's what annoys me about inno, they make a huge change and after that they literally NEVER, absolutely never try to tweak things at least a bit. all you have to do is just change 2 values smh. at least see how things would go like this, even if it's maybe not a permanent fix...
 

delldell56

Well-Known Member
OK. I think most of you are missing the point here and mixing things up. One thing that's not really debatable because it concerns Inno only and they won't reconsider it, is that they mess up with battles & dueling introducing new overpowering sets at least 4 times a year. I get it, they need the revenues to keep the servers running, and drop 2-3 nugget sets and then 2-3 tombola sets a year to keep them coming. It makes forts impossible to defend, then the new set makes them impossible to attack and so on. We can do very little about that, other than work around the changes and adapt until the next set comes. The other thing is the validity or not of the use of multi attacks as a tactic, which is what this thread is about and it's something that actually involves players actions.

From what I've read so far, you guys can't even agree on what's a multi or not. Some consider multi as two or more battles dug in a short amount of time or even the same day. Some think a multi is when a second battle is called giving players less than 2, 6, 8 hours in between. Some call it a multi when the same player is responsible for the digs, regardless of whether it is an annoying distraction or something consequential. And very few of you would even consider it a valid tactic. So, THIS POST is basically to the new CM because it seems he has been flooded with all kind of complaints by the usual players and their versions of multi, and needs actual feedback to understand what he is dealing with and how to act on it without risking abuse of power. Because of it and aware of how highly unpopular this will be, I choose not to send it to his inbox for his eyes only.

Hr.Nyborg, I've been playing The West almost since the addition of forts to the game. The only two players I can think of that have been around without taking a pause, longer than me actually, and have kept themselves active in fort fighting for that long while witnessing all changes are Nisa and HelenBack. All 3 of us happen to have led powerful fort fighting alliances when big forts would be filled on a daily basis. All 3 of us have experienced first hand what valid multis are and what the abuse of multis can do. Also, all 3 of us have been best friends with moderators and/or past Community Managers at some point, with Nisa even having served in the Mod Team, so I think we know the rules and the game quite well. Enough to say with proper knowledge that, annoying as they can be, sometimes multis are a valid tactic in this game.

When can a dig be called a multi? It depends on the world and the nature of the dig. When a world is new, all forts are up for the grabs. Sometimes you'll see groups of players that agreed to join that world together to replicate their towns and alliances; they come with a plan that includes counties, which forts they are going to claim, etc. But as the new world is advertised in other Inno games, you also get waves of new players that have their own alliances in those games and want to become a powerhouse here too. You'll see multiple clashes during the first months, because everybody wants the fort next to their town and later they'll want to own as many forts as they can or at least strategic forts around the map. You could see 3-7 digs a day and none of them would be necessarily a multi. Now, you could also see one town attack a fort, then the owner of said fort digs on the attacking town's fort (or an important one owned by their alliance) to counter it. That's not technically a multi, but a counter attack. A counter, foul play as it is, is a valid tactic but only when it's not abused, which would happen if the owner of a fort counters every time as a matter of defense. You could also see one alliance digging several forts that belong to the other party on a short amount of time or simultaneously; that's a multi, but the digging alliance could be making a statement. If it is a one time only thing, that's pretty much a statement. If it happen several times, that's an abuse of the tactic. Then you could also see a 1-player town digging on several forts, big-medium-and small on the same day, and you can tell that player is multi-ing for diversion. That's annoying, that's a multi but it's also inconsequential because you know said player is unlikely going to fight any of those battles, and even if they did the fort(s) would either be safe or easily taken back. If anything, you could apply the same rule used for players abusing the dueling system or breaking the rules: punishment points or an escalating 3-7 days ban leading to a permanent ban. There could happen too that one lone player digs a fort when there's already a battle around the time called. If the outsider digs let's say one small fort and actually is there to fight, alone or with a handful of other random players. that's not a multi. Just because they didn't follow the rules put in place by the running alliances, you can't say they broke the rules of the game. They broke the rules of the alliances, which is different. Alliances they don't belong to. If you, as an alliance, can't designate a bunch of non regular offliners to be there and guard the flag, I am sorry but that's just bad management and not the outsider's fault. If a player reskills as a tank, digs all the forts in one day scheduling each attack apart from one another to have enough time to fight all of them and actually shows up in full gear and HP to fight online, that's a multi too but it's completely valid. There could too be the case that an alliance other than the ruling alliances disagrees with their resolutions and stances and wants to play by their own rules; well, take their digs on a case by case basis before you call them illegal multis. You can't force players to only play for one or two groups just because they are the largest ones. And there would be variations of all these that should and must be taken individually.

When can't a multi be called a legal tactic at all? If several players, or several towns/alliances agree to call multis to disrupt the game by creating diversion in order to take forts because they forced the dispersion of defenders, then that's a malicious use of multis. If used over and over, it can and will ruin a world. There is no walk around to find the validity of this and it definitely requires the action of the moderators.

As hideous as this must be for the dedicated fort fighters, and trust me when I say I understand what you feel and hate it as much as you do because I've been in the same position, just because two or more attacks happen in a lapse of 2-8 hours, or whatever cooling time is agreed here, it doesn't mean they can automatically be ruled illegal multis. And depending on the nature of them, they could be in fact disruptive but most of the times rather inconsequential.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
If Wilson just had another +5/+5 att/def....
+0.5 Attack and Defense on every piece,
Make 6/6 clothing set bonus of Attack at least 5 (what is 1.2 ffs?!)
And give 20 more Resistance to Set bonus of 5 and 6.

Voila. It's useful.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Yes, it was mentioned several times that there actually isn't a "perfect" time.

Europe itself has various timezones, let alone others.

So like 10 pm is 11 or midnight, or even 1 am for some and they won't be online either.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
When can't a multi be called a legal tactic at all? If several players, or several towns/alliances agree to call multis to disrupt the game by creating diversion in order to take forts because they forced the dispersion of defenders, then that's a malicious use of multis. If used over and over, it can and will ruin a world. There is no walk around to find the validity of this and it definitely requires the action of the moderators...And depending on the nature of them, they could be in fact disruptive but most of the times rather inconsequential.
Anyone?
  1. Who determines what is a malicious or a non-malicious in a game play decision?
  2. What really ruins any game?

I don't follow the logic in this explanation because is it not basically saying multi-attack is a tactic in new world, with a one person town or as a counter attack but not a tactic if it is organized by several players. I don't see the difference other than one is more powerful than the other.

Am I missing some piece of the puzzle?

Since forts can be taken back, tactics changed or the same tactic applied as the other fellow or simply allow a disruption and just focus on less rather than more forts being controlled multi-digg-a-roo's making any tactic inconsequential? What I experienced was frustration by verbal abuse not actual game play. This in my view is what creates a nasty environment which can turn people off but still not ruin a game unless you allow it to.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Can we draw a parallel between (illegal) fort attacks and (illegal) market purchases?

If we put an item on the market and list it for a friend and then someone grabs the item we determine that is a steal? This reminds me a little of an old game where your opponent sinks your battle ship. "You sunk my battleship", cry's the player. Why that dirty :dastardly: rotten no good for nothin' varmint he/she is a bad player that scum suckin' snake.

Illegal?
It seems more like underhanded to me and requires something other than a moderator. Give that guy a break why don't yah!
 
Top