FF Idea (radical) for INNO to consider,


Well-Known Member
I passed this idea to 'The busy Sheriff' and he said INNO would never put the coding effort into consideration. He's probably right but... we have (or used to have) some fantastic coder dudes in our membership that might have ideas. My idea is a change in the most popular activity (and money for INNO) generating our worlds.
What if....

1. When a small fort reaches X number of over filled battles, the construction opens up for it to be able to become a medium fort. If the fort changes hands (battle result) during this time, the new owners are responsible for continuing the building etc. (goal - getting smalls to medium size by lots of fighting in them) :)

2. When a medium fort has X number of over filled battles, the construction reopens for it to become a large.

3. When a county has two or more large forts, the fort with the most battles in a month (or whatever) has the 'name the county' rights. (Or some variation)

Perhaps then, if a fort lies dormant for X number of months/weeks, it could slowly begin to deteriorate and need rebuilding parts of it to regain its status or face reverting to a lesser size. Long term neglect would ultimately result in an unbuilt 'small' fort.
This idea would promote activity in all areas - workers, communication, supply runs etc. Plus the obvious - more fort fights and use of all sizes. INNO gets more nugget action. :)

In theory, a county 'could' have 3 smalls or 3 mediums, or 3 large, or any variable of the 3 sizes, and stages of construction. Static numbers of FFer caps for each size of fort (as originally in place in game) would/could promote goals for sign up, rather than changing caps, causing confusion.

All the above is incentive to activity I think, much as when a world is new. Possible? What do you think?
Longtimer Laural :-))




Well-Known Member
I love the idea of fort damage/degradation and even set up a mailing list on Dakota so the fort owners could talk about it. Zero on-topic replies.

Even without being able to super-build a fort beyond it's current limits, forts taking damage makes sense. Again, it's a coding issue, but if each sector had some version of hit points and MISSES caused damage to those sectors, you could introduce entire tactics based around destroying sectors by intentionally missing or saving a sector by intentionally taking shots. Workers would have to scramble to put things right before the next time the fort gets attacked and it'd have to be a whole-town activity to get repair supplies to the Resource Stock for efficient reconstruction.