Kidd Kalypso
Well-Known Member
Lots of good activity in that world, can I please transfer my w13 toon there?
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 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...
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.
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.
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 agree with not having all Awesomia battles at the same time.
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.
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.
Yes and no.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
might need to find another game to play
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.
Maybe should find a solution for huge amounts of town treasure so player can focus on spending that money on something better.
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?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
might need to find another game to play
Maybe should find a solution for huge amounts of town treasure so player can focus on spending that money on something better.
What a cartel move.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.