FF battles

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
That's not gonna happen with random 6 pm Medium digs, or random Big fort digs.
People wants consistency, stability, and some balance/challenge to invest money (nuggets) into Premium etc, and time.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if you just accept the fact that there ARE people that are online during those "random" times that are NOT on during so-called "prime time" and allow a way for them to be active also that would help. Not everyone is available online only during that set 3-4 hour time. Idaho is made up of more international people than most worlds before it and have just as much a right to enjoy the game as others. Obviously, those random times work for some people. It doesn't matter if the fort fills, it doesn't matter what size it is. There are people wanting to play during those times.

Idaho has a a lot of potential still, and a lot of people that would like to work to make it good. Older worlds did not start off perfect, many of them took a lot of working together. I have seen many times when there was imbalance (not only in numbers, but also with time zones), that towns in alliances were willing to shift around so to improve those situations, rather than having one side so OP that they decided they had a right to determine what was best for EVERYONE, which clearly didn't work in Idaho. By shifting around, you will then have defense available for those "random" times, as well as during "non-random" times.

Twice, there was an alliance that was SOOO OP that they decided they could make the rules for everyone. It's always well and good for the winning side when they win all the forts, but when the table is turned, all of a sudden they want to quit and run to another world and claim the world is dying. Thing is, when that one alliance is having all the fun winning all the battles, the other side is losing and not only losing forts, but also motivation. And again, they stop playing and are blamed for "killing the world".

Of course, by dividing or balancing the alliances, that always causes a problem too because everyone likes to stay where they are and many don't want to (or refuse to) play with others. So, you have to decide, what's more important - staying with your "own people" and being part of the world dying OR being willing to be flexible to keep a world going (or just leave...). Clearly, one group has made their decision and are trying to drag others down with them.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Well (I have a guess but) idk who you are or how many worlds you've seen & how long you've been in Idaho and if you are being objective or not but first let's go with this "Prime time" expression some ppl seems to have so much obsession and grudge with.

It only refers to a certain time period in which the most attendants and Onliners of a world be on both sides.
Even though that expression was there for years, sadly some people considers it to be just some made-up thing one side "invented" just to have best results for themselves, even when they are the ones having the best of it. (Like 20-30 more people & more Onliners)

But yea, it's for the good of majority other than few people who wanna play on other hours.
That doesn't and never meant that other hours can't be played on though, IF it's viable/feasible as in numbers per side, available Battle Leaders and/or Rankers (if any) etc etc.
This was talked A LOT of times, but yea, putting the blame is always easier.

Anyhow, Idaho had lost Tons of players and Competent Leaders after Union Officer came, similar to other worlds, and opening of Juarez (aka Juspaius) was the last blow.
Yes, it still had potential, which is why we sticked around.

It might still has potential, yes, but so does this game yet it still sucks (and we stupidly play it)
Idaho is made up of more international people than most worlds before it
I don't believe so. Check Colorado and see how much of a International mix is there.
Oh, you will find tons of Americans too.

If you mean those hordes of National Alliances though.. That's something else. Most of them shared almost (+-2) same time zone anyway.
and a lot of people that would like to work to make it good.
Yea? Where exactly? Underground?
I just see some people imposing their terms on others just because they wanna play on whenever they want, without any consistency.
Even though most of those people can easily play (and played) on "Prime time"

Call us biased, but things like this makes us believe that there is no sincerity but bad intentions behind.
I mean why else would one continue digging at 6 PM (or 2-3 AM) server time (just for the sake of few obsessed people that can also easily play on other hours) regardless of seeing how "meh" it turns out for both sides.

Ps. Onliner numbers can easily be checked via WestForts or Battle Reports.
It doesn't matter if the fort fills, it doesn't matter what size it is.
Sure it doesn't have to fill, although like I said it shouldn't favor few people only, since you/they claim be as inclusive as possible.

And no, size matters. That is, if you care about Quality and Challenge rather than outright slaughter.
Those sizes were designed for a purpose don't you think? Like Big fort is truly huge for less than 50-60 people, considering the Offliners.
Twice, there was an alliance that was SOOO OP that they decided they could make the rules for everyone. It's always well and good for the winning side when they win all the forts, but when the table is turned, all of a sudden they want to quit and run to another world and claim the world is dying. Thing is, when that one alliance is having all the fun winning all the battles, the other side is losing and not only losing forts, but also motivation. And again, they stop playing and are blamed for "killing the world".
I believe it was more than twice. There were too many Nugget muncher Ego boosted Alliances who were doing their best to "prove" that they are the best, with upgraded gear and high levels that others didn't have, for some months.

And fwiw, we've been "Underdogs" for most of our Idaho ( & Colorado) adventure and didn't quit.
Our quitting now is being out of Hope and Battle Leaders (& Rankers) as it was everyone's since Union Officer madness.
Of course, by dividing or balancing the alliances, that always causes a problem too because everyone likes to stay where they are and many don't want to (or refuse to) play with others. So, you have to decide, what's more important - staying with your "own people" and being part of the world dying OR being willing to be flexible to keep a world going (or just leave...). Clearly, one group has made their decision and are trying to drag others down with them.
Believe what you will but we did that "Schism" for the sake of Balance and Quality while making an "Elite" Counter-Ally for the "Nugget munchers" based Alliance while absolutely no one else wanted to lift a single finger.

We even sent word of why we did it and what we plan to do, but some insecure person (which we planned to be Ally with) decided to make a dumb, power-grab or out of personal grudges move as a counter and forced us to be with the Ally we were supposed to counter with Experience and Professionalism.

In any case we worked with every single town/Ally we can to achieve something that isn't some pixel domination.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Last but not least, a lot of us aren't playing in Juspaius after horrible Idaho experience.

If I knew how much of a P2W game has become, I wouldn't heed to so called "Recommended World" and join Idaho when I came back to the game after a Decade.
Or if I knew how much of a freak-show Houston was/is...


It's ironic seeing Idahonians in there though.. Idk what makes/made them think it would be any better in current state of the game.
Also there is this saying.. "Do the same but expect different results.." Yea, good luck with that.
 
First thing I'll address is, you said you returned after a decade? (10 years?) This game is approximately 12 years old give or take. Just to ease your mind, I've been around nearly the full 12 years and on most of the worlds at some time or other. Every now and then I check into one of the ones I was in a few years ago just to check its development. I left for 10 mths or so once, quite some time ago. I rarely even comment in these forums.

Secondly, I've seen you blame Union sets, I've seen you blame time of battles, I've seen you blame nugget munchers, I've seen you blame rng's, what have you NOT blamed? If the worlds you have visited are so horrible, why do you still participate at all? AND, if you are dissatisfied, that's ok too. You are not required to be satisfied. But, to announce how horrible it is (to you) and try to persuade others away with you is quite discerning for those who do want to stay and make it work. To discourage your own alliance from hanging on trying to make it work, along with you is also discerning.

As I mentioned earlier, the older worlds didn't magically become perfect overnight. Most of them took a few years. People did not give up on them after the first couple of years, rather they stuck with it. They also, as I also mentioned, were willing to do some shifting to make it work as need be. They didn't have as many worlds to choose from as there are now, so they knew they had to make it work or just leave. They didn't try to pit elite vs. nugget munchers, as you claimed that you guys did. A lot of people ended up being excluded or just in a state of limbo behind that move.. There are several categories for imbalance...from being OP, to time zones to multiple world activity to many, many things. Colorado is one of them (ya' know, the one you are trying to recruit for). It took them a few years of hard work to get where they are, (and dare I mention that they also have "off-prime" battles?) I know about the "off-prime" term, of course, when MOST people are active; however, there are off prime times that others are able to participate that were not during prime ...or when people CAN be online (not just afk). Just as they are able to be on various times, so are the ones pushing to limit or restrict the times. Seems the "prime time" got later than it used to be (just a personal observance while on Idaho) Obviously people enjoy the other time options, or they wouldn't continue trying to have them or fight for them. There are 24 hours in a day, and noon for you is not noon for others. Your "preferred time" is what, 20:00-22:00? I stopped keeping up because I kept hearing people say they couldn't be online or were in another battle in another world, etc. It's not always about just trying to be annoying or have their way and such.

I will say, of all the worlds, Idaho is a little different in many ways than the others. You speak of teaming the elite against the nugget munchers. In that respect, there are many people being excluded. Why not try to mix some of each with a mix from everyone else? What a novel idea! Also, why must Idaho be modeled after other worlds, when clearly it isn't working. In this world, finally the "underdogs", non-elite or non-nugget munchers, or whatever you want to call them, they are finally speaking out and saying they want more than that and rightly so. There are many people that would like to be more active and respected that do not fall into those categories. They have value also.

I will agree that a new world each year is becoming more problematic and senseless and a migration would be great; however, those that sign into every one of them or several of them is also somewhat senseless, as many times there are multiple battles all at one time and those people are unable to focus on any one of them, making them practically useless as far as following orders or having a quality battle goes. It would be nice to be able to have more that are truly online and can have conversation with, or that see orders when they are made, not 2 rounds later. There is online and there is online but afk. Quite a difference. And, of course I'm familiar with battle reports and westforts. Also, Inno has made it quite clear that there is no migration planned in the near foreseeable future, so just accept it and make the best of what there is. I never understood the need to register to so many worlds just to turn around and complain about there being so many and a need for migration being in order. Why not just limit the number of worlds you are in? Pick the best and drop the rest...lol. I know I did when I found I was in 8 worlds at one time. Made things much simpler and less to complain about. Also, will hopefully point Inno to the ones worth keeping and the ones worth dropping should the day ever come they agree a migration is needed. As long as people keep registering in so many, why should they?

I have a feeling that some are away for IFBC and once they are over will be returning...yes?

Oh yea, "do the same, expecting different results"...exactly one of the points I'm making with my posts here. ("
It's ironic seeing Idahonians in there though.. Idk what makes/made them think it would be any better in current state of the game.
Also there is this saying.. "Do the same but expect different results.." Yea, good luck with that. " ya mean like you trying to recruit for CO?)
 
Last edited:

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Wow, someone who can write as much crap about Idaho as much as I can. Not sure who you are in-game, but it's nice to see things from other perspectives.

First on Prime time, every world I've ever played on has managed to agree on a prime time, until Idaho. It's always been the unfortunate case that North Americans are about 25% of the player-base, I've actually always advocated for an American timezone server, but as roughly 75% of us are European or English, the times where we could physically fill battles was just after Euro dinner time. This wasn't an ideological stance, it was simple statistics. Most players play on multiple worlds, I believe, and have real lives outside of Tombola Simulator, the vast majority simply don't want 3 idaho battles a day ranging from 4pm to 4am, and when we see that crap in the fort overview, we simply sigh and go play a better and more stable world.
Now remember Idaho, in the traditional time-slot for Prime time, we were having, for example, 80 vs 80 battles. Not amazing but you could build that up over a few months to be 100 vs 84 and even onto large forts. Americans wanted night battles and we obliged at first because I am extremely sympathetic to the timezone issue, these were something like 30 vs 15 battles. It doesn't take a lot of statistical analysis to figure out this wasn't sustainable for us as players, or for the poor soul who had to lead a slaughter like this past midnight for themselves, or in most cases we didn't have leaders for the night battles.

Twice, there was an alliance that was SOOO OP that they decided they could make the rules for everyone.
This actually happened constantly. First was Warhammer trying to control the entire server, then DF and the Russians had all the gravitas, then the Russians quit and DF became so weak that Salt Ops had to literally Schism and try to work with players we didn't particularly like (fun fact, we worked with every single fort town on that world at some point, such was our commitment to finding a way to have quality fights) to try to salvage something after months of domination and nothing happening to change that.
but when the table is turned, all of a sudden they want to quit and run to another world and claim the world is dying
Quite vague but I assume it's aimed at Sultans of Salt leadership. We've always tried to be the underdogs; in Salt Ops we opposed the original nugget town by recruiting lots of tanks. We were getting our asses kicked for the first 6 months of the world, but eventually we caught up with the power curve and became a worthy opponent. Then we performed a Salty Schism when DF weakened to the point we were dominating them, we try to team with MDM Madhouse, but they took our place in Salt Ops instead, forcing us to go team with DF, which made us once again OP af. Then we went Solo alliance, and wanted the whole world to fight us. Then we sent our best active battle leader to DF after DF lost their last leader in TinCan, and New Freedom insisted that they were no longer going to dig us (as some kind of political move that they quickly went back on when we went over their heads and provided ourselves with an opponent). Again we were willing to work with anyone, but half of SO refused to play with DF and the other half refused to play with Tony, Half of NF refused to play with Sultans and the other half refused to fight with with DF, and half of DF refused to worth with anyone at all, until they realised how strong they were with Sultans, and were upset that this overpowered alliance wasn't to our liking.

If you want to talk about a town taking unilateral action that had negative consequences for the entire world, then look no further than mdm's madhouse. She stole an entire town, then switched sides to fight with DF, then switched sides to fight with SO, then switched sides to go 3rd alliance solo, then refused any diplomacy for 4 months, then quit. All while messing about with up to 30 precious fort fighters and forcing everyone else to counter her actions for the sake of balance.

Thing is, when that one alliance is having all the fun winning all the battles
I take huge issue with this statement, who the hell thinks winning every battle is fun? What's the point in having a fight if the outcome is already known? Is this truly how you, mysterious unknown player, saw Sultans of Salt? Genuinely interested in the answer to that.

As I mentioned earlier, the older worlds didn't magically become perfect overnight. Most of them took a few years.
Since I don't know who you are, I have no idea if you were ever involved in Idaho's politics. MY GOD it was a nightmare and drove experienced leaders away before the world even properly started. It was like talking to a brick wall, no consensus was ever possible because it seemed that no one actually knew what they wanted, and one prominent "leader" simply wanted chaos as like a social experiment or something?
TBH on most old worlds, the sides were decided pretty early on, we always had dig rotations and schedules, most importantly we had enough players to support competitive fort battles and to drive for innovation and improvement because there was a chance you might not get a space in the battle if you weren't built suitably. This was a big issue on idaho, as you don't need to skill for battles to guarantee a spot in an under-filled fort, therefore there was no HP, further driving down the quality of the battles. It wasn't really possible to swap towns around either, because DF never had an issue being OP, and MDM/Tony never understood that there was even an issue.

They didn't try to pit elite vs. nugget munchers, as you claimed that you guys did. A lot of people ended up being excluded or just in a state of limbo behind that move
Firstly, Nugget munchers vs regulars has become a very common make-up of a West world where the player-base isn't large enough to have multiple large groups of nugger munchers.
Secondly, I'd love to know who we excluded, as we are hyper aware that players are the entire content of this game, and inclusion is very important to me.

and dare I mention that they also have "off-prime" battles?
Seems to be a common misconception that we wanted to make "off prime" battles illegal or something. The point was always that the fight that can physically bring the most players should be the main fight every day, and off primes should be small forts because the world can't support anything larger, if it could even support smalls.

Now you are more than welcome to try to get people to shuffle about to balance things out, we only tried for months so maybe you'll have more luck after a year and with the fact that you aren't seen as the big bad guys of the world.
Does Idaho still have potential? Not for me. All the competent leaders and tanks are gone and from what I'm hearing, people still can't dig the right sized fort for the size of player-base you have there.
 

Johnny the Death

Active Member
I love this debate and stories of this world.

But decent battles can still carry on here, as long as everyone works together. Last fight was a decent one, close number and not one sided, BECAUSE all the ones who want FFing worked out together.
So if players who just don't like playing in Idaho, Go other worlds and please leave us alone ;)

Game still goes on and I believe it will gets better.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
So if players who just don't like playing in Idaho, Go other worlds and please leave us alone
No one is stopping you from doing whatever u want. Be my guest and have all the "freedom" you want.
But I don't believe you have the right to say that. Surely you can't decide who stays and leaves.

That being said we would migrate if Inno let us.

I've spent too much time, effort and some real money in Idaho that I wouldn't wanna see wasted.
And I'm definitely not a fan of quitting things, else I would have (more like should have) a year ago like majority did.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
I've been around nearly the full 12 years and on most of the worlds at some time or other.
Being around doesnt say much on its own.
How much you were involved in "business" does.

A lot of people underestimate the Forting business and doesn't know how much effort it takes & falls on one single person most of the time.
I've seen you blame Union sets, I've seen you blame time of battles, I've seen you blame nugget munchers, I've seen you blame rng's, what have you NOT blamed? If the worlds you have visited are so horrible, why do you still participate at all? AND, if you are dissatisfied, that's ok too. You are not required to be satisfied. But, to announce how horrible it is (to you) and try to persuade others away with you is quite discerning for those who do want to stay and make it work. To discourage your own alliance from hanging on trying to make it work, along with you is also discerning.
I'm a player (and a customer) , of course I will "blame" (aka giving feedback) on things causing imbalances and issues that are beyond repairing at least in short term.
And surely I'm not expected to like P2W eh?

I've watched enough before making such announcements and I've also said I won't stand in the way of anyone willing to do something.
Didn't say no one to quit. (Not like people will just listen to me) I just said, I won't bother anymore, not alone anyway.

I don't even have to tell anything though. Without consistency, stability or quality they stop on their own.
No one will give Nuggets/money for a freak-show.

Ps. I only play in 2 worlds. And inviting to other server isn't what you call it out to be.
Idaho is a little different in many ways than the others.
Sure it is, or, well, was. Had great number of people coming from all servers including National ones and Onliner ratio was great.

Sadly Inno blew their last decent chance with new servers by making a genius Union Officer invention and opening just another exactly after 1 year.
As I mentioned earlier, the older worlds didn't magically become perfect overnight. Most of them took a few years. People did not give up on them after the first couple of years, rather they stuck with it. They also, as I also mentioned, were willing to do some shifting to make it work as need be. They didn't have as many worlds to choose from as there are now, so they knew they had to make it work or just leave.
We know all that. But they had so much more people to work with and servers didn't lose half or more of its players and Battle Leaders with new servers or new P2W Nugget sets.

Besides, none of those Servers are really alive or consistent now. It's only Colorado.
You speak of teaming the elite against the nugget munchers. In that respect, there are many people being excluded. Why not try to mix some of each with a mix from everyone else? What a novel idea! Also, why must Idaho be modeled after other worlds, when clearly it isn't working.
No one was excluded from battles. Not like there were overfilling battles to be picky.
But surely we are allowed to pick who to invite our Ally eh? Rather than inviting every-single-town like some people did and caused issues with numbers and all.
ya mean like you trying to recruit for CO?
Funny you compare it to recruiting for "newest" world.

Colorado has been a thing since 2011 and still the most consistent and decent server. (Although at this imbalanced state of the game it's far from perfect.)
And not gonna die with the opening of new servers.

Do you know why?
First, it doesnt have this bs SP/AP buying thing with Nuggets.
Second, it has these strict "Dig Rules" some people truly hate.

I will take Order over Chaos in so called "Freedom" undercover.

Yes it is possible to have battles on other times. Because it's feasible, unlike Idaho, and hopefully there will always be someone to Rank & Lead.
Although after Union Officer they are far from fun, balanced/challenging as one side has a lot of users of it.
 
Last edited:

Johnny the Death

Active Member
ehm, i am not forcing to move or go, Just say IF players feel not happy/ dont like to play in Idaho, they can just move on, but dont complain this world is crap, because there are still players active