Fort Battle Digging

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

I really don't see what this solves. A town or alliance can still dig as many multis as they want as long as different people do the digging, and do so without spending nuggets.

Shaelee said:
you need this rule change to keep rouges from ruining your game here.
Click to expand...

If it's one rogue (red or otherwise) digging constantly, then he probably doesn't have much backing and will never have any chance of winning. On the off chance he does steal a fort, a little bit of diplomacy between major alliances can make sure he'll never be allowed to keep it.

This does nothing to stop multis besides one very specific scenario which can generally be completely ignored. One idiot [can't] ruin a world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

mbrown0772 said:
I think it would be a great idea if a player were only able to dig 1 fort battle every 12 hrs or something similar. This would prevent 1 player from running around the World digging multiple battles that they have no intention of attending. Towns and alliances could still run a multi battle plan by having different players dig which is part of the game but would prevent the 1 player with a grudge from ruing the game for hundreds of others.
Click to expand...
Set it to town and I'll dance. Pump the cooldown time into 1 week and I'll be endlessly happy.

But even in this shape, that one player cannot dig multis, I'll say yes.
4 stars since it's player and not town oriented.
 

DeletedUser22685

Despite the fact that I'm certain you've sent a mass telegram to your alliance to get approval for your idea, I agree with it as well. It would get my vote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

sounds like a good Idea to me or it could be a cap on that town instead of the person
 

DeletedUser

well, i think there are 2 things:

if some1 else starts a fort battle, you can't start any fort battle anymore, so an alliance can just start every 12 hours a fort battle on small fort, and they are safe.

But, you might say, every alliance may only start 1 fort battle a 12 hours,
Some might say, go in different alliances, but they will stay in the alliance, because you can register for the fort battle from some space away, if you are in the same alliance from attacking/deffing town.

t-w.nl
 

DeletedUser

If one person digs on 5 forts, it shouldn't matter......5 / 140 = 3.57% of the forts in the world......
 

DeletedUser22493

This is a server community problem, and needs to be solved by the server community.

If this problem generally isn't supported by the players on the server, then it can easily be prevented by working together to avoid it.

If the server doesn't care, then there is no rule or "method of prevention" that can solve it. It's just to many loopholes around it.

W11 for instance has solved it, by working together.
 

DeletedUser

Rebow is correct, it's a world community issue that can, and should, be addressed by simple diplomacy. In world 7, there's a gentleman's agreement between the major alliances, where a fort war is initiated no more than once every 8 hours. It works, for the most part, and the fort wars are often engaging.

Rebow is also correct, there are always loopholes of exploit ---

Player Limit
Focusing specifically on mbrown's idea, it's a bad one: Creating a rule on a single player doesn't do a damn thing. Multiple players in a town can work together to attack multiple forts simultaneously.

Town Limit
Focusing on JoxerTM's adjusted recommend: Creating a rule on a single town doesn't do a damn thing. Multiple players in an alliance can work together to attack multiple forts simultaneously.

Alliance
Nobody presented it, but I'll cover it: Just as player or town, creating a rule on an alliance doesn't do a damn thing. Multiple players can have different townships, each setup to initiate fort wars simultaneously using "shared telegrams" or an external alliance forum (non-game forum).​

Alternatively, if you impose a rule that hits it so only one fort war can be initiated every 8, 12 or 24 hours, a dominating alliance can ensure no fort wars are initiated by initiating a fort war on their own forts every 8, 12 or 24 hours (whatever the time limit is), locking every other group from being able to initiate fort wars and essentially closing the world via attrition.

If you're not satisfied with the cash penalty associated with initiating too many fort wars, request an increase to the cash penalty and/or impose item sacrifices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I don't like it - artificial hard limits for edge cases which can be handled socially are rarely a good idea.

The soft limit means that escalating costs will get very very expensive quickly, and from a social point of view, the multi-digger is unlikely to benefit once people work together against him.

On w11 I had an issue once where I dug a fort, and one of the owners immediately nuggetted to one of my forts and dug it as a counter, then wouldn't respond to messages. I then used the nuclear option to counter his counter, by digging a second fort of his. It was more expensive (I took care to dig a small), but it sent a clear message, and diplomatic messages moved fast (confusion over battles can result in reduced attendances for every minute they're not resolved).

We quickly came to an arrangement that both the counter, and my counter-to-the-counter were cancelled, and my originally dug battle was the "main event" (we still lost...).

If this idea was in-force, and someone counters one of my digs, I have no response until I can convince someone else to counter the counter on my behalf.

This idea would have the unintended side-effect of making counters more easy...

I'm against this. Address it socially, and let the rogue digger bankrupt himself.

-- Pete.
 

DeletedUser30224

honestly this would only work if the whole world would be allowed to dig only after 8h intervals ... no multies ever again :) that's just half idea there. .. we would need to limit a town not to be able to do consecutive digs ...not allowing anybody else to dig....or even alliance for that matter, even better ...
 

DeletedUser

Yeah, that's another thing, it does nothing to prevent counters. Multis need to be controlled through diplomacy, not by a game change fraught with loopholes. The only thing this would prevent is multis with 3 attackers, which anyone with any sense already knows are waste of time the second they're dug.
 

DeletedUser

I'm not big on this issue as I never dig, leave it to others, but how about a way to control rogue diggers by requiring 2 players to dig a fort before the battle is confirmed and shown up in the the Battle Overview and charged for?
Just an idea, feel free to shoot it down if it's stupid :D
 

DeletedUser30224

cause usually these rouge diggers are usually doing it on behalf of their town, or a few players from that town, it is easy to get another chap from your town and go dig on a fort to make multi , we did not solve anything just make it harder to dig normal battles.

Is that shoot down enough for you ? :p
 

DeletedUser

I agree with the community involvements and working with each other in each world to come to a agreement between alliances. W14 has a great multi agreement between the alliances. The problem is 99.9% of us work with the agreement but the .01% gets mad and goes and spends 70K on digging fort after fort. This is not typically done by a town or a whole alliance but by some random individual trying to mess things up because he did not get ranked or some similar juvenile action. My suggestion was not to prevent players from digging or towns from digging but to prevent a rogue player from ruining the game for the hundreds that like to attend full fort battles.
 

DeletedUser30224

I know one ... Zarekbean or something ... Berkie ... they do this in AZ ... yet we know to send just a skeleton crew to take care of these 1-2 attackers and all fort fighting alliances do not support multies. They mess a wee bit with our schedule ... but even they run out of cash eventualy.

In a rogue case (single individual) making something like you said makes perfect sense.

I just though we want to prevent multies as whole :)
 

DeletedUser

This idea is still not properly formatted, and most seem to agree it would do nothing to help prevent multis as was the intention. I am closing the thread....however, if the person who started it decides they want to format the idea, and continue the discussion that seems pointless thus far, msg me and i will unlock it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top