Fort Fight Multi Battles - Stop!

[DeletedUser35277]

Something needs to be done on Dakota. Players digging multi after multi
and causing mass confusion. Which one is the 'real' fight? If we win a multi,
we give it back. This is happening way way too much and I would really
like to see Inno somehow code the action so that a certain number of
hours must pass between one fort fight and another. So that digging a
multi battle is no longer possible. What say you?

 

[Alllen]

I agree they put in a 8 or 12 hour limit between digs.

 

[DeletedUser36979]

Digging a multi is a legal strategy, and should as such be possible.

I would be against preventing different players digging a fight around the same time. But it would be a good idea that the same player could only dig a fight every 2h or 3h, kind of the way dueling is... the is no problem in 3 people attacking you at the same time, but each of them have to wait at least 1h before they can attack you again.

This way multies and parallel fights are still possible, but require more planning from a town/alliance, but it can't be one person that travels around at turtle speed digging 8-10-12 forts within 10 minutes.

 

[DeletedUser36559]

Just double or triple the cost required to dig a fort or have a hour limit between digs otherwise people will just keeping digging multies. Yes it's a legal strategy but it can end up destroying FFs on that world aswell.

 

[DeletedUser36979]

Just double or triple the cost required to dig a fort or have a hour limit between digs otherwise people will just keeping digging multies. Yes it's a legal strategy but it can end up destroying FFs on that world aswell.

You really think money is an issue?
Many old towns have many millions in the treasury, and don't even give the economy any thought when digging. If the treasury runs low, a few of the rich member just dump some millions.
Increasing the cost will just prevent small new towns from starting fights.

Also, remember there is a difference between multies and parallel fights, and with some planing a large alliance could easily fill 2-3 forts at the same time. I've been part of some. How do you see the difference?

Like I stated earlier, put a limit on the individual player, not the community. If 5 players want to dig 5 forts at the same time, let them. But if one player wants to dig 5 forts, have him wait 2-3 hours between each.

What people ask for here would be equal to limiting duels against a player to 1 per hour, instead of 1 attack per hour per person.

 

[DeletedUser35120]

There's a section in this forum: Previously Suggested Ideas [PLEASE READ]

...this thing has already been suggested before, with a lot of debates and discussions and it was finally REJECTED in a poll.

https://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=54085

As for your ideas, yea it's all fine. But you gotta think of abuse preventions of this feature. What if some guy from a town with him being the only member, allianceless, not knowing how to rank or lead digs a battle everyday lets say at 7pm server just for the giggles? Well he can, Right? And then you can't dig or have a proper battle for the rest of the day since you gotta wait 8 hrs.

 

[DeletedUser]

I would just try to go with each individual person only being allowed to dig one fort at a time. Big alliances could still schedule their two a days, they just might have to have two players dig instead of just one.

As Anny said, you don't want to block everyone from digging because some independent one man town guy decides to dig a fort because he wants to just complete a quest that requires him to attend a fort battle.

 

[DeletedUser36559]

You really think money is an issue?
Many old towns have many millions in the treasury, and don't even give the economy any thought when digging. If the treasury runs low, a few of the rich member just dump some millions.
Increasing the cost will just prevent small new towns from starting fights.

For a normal dig the cost stays the same so small new towns can dig if they wish to, what I'm saying is for every 2nd dig onwards from the same player the price doubles then triples and so on.. yes money is not even an issue for rich players but if Inno wanted to they can stop multies but they haven't done anything about it so I'm just suggesting something.

 

[DeletedUser35120]

I would just try to go with each individual person only being allowed to dig one fort at a time. Big alliances could still schedule their two a days, they just might have to have two players dig instead of just one.

As Anny said, you don't want to block everyone from digging because some independent one man town guy decides to dig a fort because he wants to just complete a quest that requires him to attend a fort battle.

And now while you don't block everyone from digging, let just say a moron named Anny who has this town, she's the only person in town with millions of cash in her bank. Every time there's a fort dug up by some alliances, this girl Anny goes and digs up two other forts belonging to the alliances engaged in the main fort-fight.

Now how do you stop that?

Basically, Abuse Prevention of this feature is impossible. Which is why it cannot be implemented. And in any case, this is an old request which has been rejected.

Just double or triple the cost required to dig a fort or have a hour limit between digs otherwise people will just keeping digging multies. Yes it's a legal strategy but it can end up destroying FFs on that world aswell.

This thing is already in place, and has been for years. Still digging multies isn't a problem.

 

[DeletedUser35277]

I would just try to go with each individual person only being allowed to dig one fort at a time. Big alliances could still schedule their two a days, they just might have to have two players dig instead of just one.

As Anny said, you don't want to block everyone from digging because some independent one man town guy decides to dig a fort because he wants to just complete a quest that requires him to attend a fort battle.

A lone individual digging a FF, rarely rarely happens. But big alliances have been doing it steady for months and months now. Who wants to fight for a fort, only to give it back because that's the 'multi' agreement.? You fight a fort fight to win, not for chuckles.

 

[DeletedUser35120]

A lone individual digging a FF, rarely rarely happens. But big alliances have been doing it steady for months and months now. Who wants to fight for a fort, only to give it back because that's the 'multi' agreement.? You fight a fort fight to win, not for chuckles.

naughty pumpkin in Colorado does it on a regular basis and steals Popsicles forts every day and every night. No one can do anything about it. It's not that it rarely happens, but it's the fact that it happens, and it's possible.

Btw, forts are for fort-fights. And "Not for chuckles"? Well, most people fort-fight to have fun and not to own the fort. One needs to realize when you own all forts, there will no fort-fights, and no fun. You would like that?

 

[DeletedUser35277]

It's ruining the whole idea of having FF's to begin with. Owning a fort is an honor and town points for the owners. Forts are getting flipped back and forth like flipping pancakes. You might as well just start making deals with alliances to trade forts back and forth, if you are going to just give it back anyway, and save everyone the confusion and the headaches. When you have 3 battles dug within a few minutes of each other, all it does is split your forces and forts get lost by default from not having enough defenders because they either are scattered all over the map or they decide on one battle to go to , and the ones that get lost that were multis are given back. It makes no dang sense and it's not FUN to play that way. Last post on this subject since Anny is mostly the one responding and she wants to dig multis so she's against it. Deny that if you can.

 

[DeletedUser33353]

Meh, it is still a viable and perfectly legitimate tactic. I have done it in the past as I am sure a lot have.

 

[DeletedUser35120]

Last post on this subject since Anny is mostly the one responding and she wants to dig multis so she's against it. Deny that if you can.

So if I point out valid facts, respond to some posts, show how the feature can be abused, I need to get personally attacked in an external forums too now? All you concluded from that was I want to dig multies? Nice assumption girl. Now let me just get a fact straight to you, I have no interest in digging multies and waste my time on them in Dakota. To hell with your fort-fighting in Dakota and to hell with the forts. I don't care and I have better things to do. You guys can fight amongst yourselves. And lastly, even if I don't post or respond here.. even if gets passed, even if it's sent to developers, it will take at least 6 months for the whole process. So your plea, or so called idea.. cannot stop any of the events happening in Dakota.

It's not that I'm all for multi-digging, but to prevent it you need alliances to cooperate and sort it out yourselves. Inno cannot solve this matter out, at least with your idea. Like I said, Abuse Prevention of your idea isn't viable, which is a primary condition for posting ideas. Maybe you should know that first.

Oh, btw.

https://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=54085 ..check out the poll here, 34.5% wanted to have a feature to prevent multis. 65.5% voted against it. Now get busy accussing them that they want to dig multies too.

Have fun.

 

[jarograv]

I agree with Anny (whether she wants to stop this proposal so she can dig billions of multis or not LOL )

1. "Make digging cost lots of money." - You gotta make it high enough that rich individuals cant multi dig, but cheap enough so a town can dig day after day to keep FFing on a server alive.

2. "Make it a time limit." - Sometimes people goof. They mean to dig a Medium at prime time but accidentally dig a small, so they dig another medium forts a few minutes later and let the opposing alliance know that the small is cancelled.

There are legitimate reasons to need to dig two forts in a short time span, that is why it failed in the past and will fail again. I hate multis since they take people away from real battles... but I'd still vote against this proposal.

 

[DeletedUser]

A lone individual digging a FF, rarely rarely happens. But big alliances have been doing it steady for months and months now. Who wants to fight for a fort, only to give it back because that's the 'multi' agreement.? You fight a fort fight to win, not for chuckles.

Could be, I only play on El Dorodo now, and it is not a good fort fighting world at the moment. The problem on this world for multi's is generally on player digging 6 or 8 battles. That is why limiting a single player to only initiating one battle every 24 hours would help.

Other players could still dig battles, just one single player could only have one dig at a time.


Have not played on Colorado for a couple of years, which was the world that had lots of good fort fights going on all the time. Multi's were not really common there at the time. Dakota was o.k.

 

[DeletedUser36979]

I agree with Anny (whether she wants to stop this proposal so she can dig billions of multis or not LOL )

1. "Make digging cost lots of money." - You gotta make it high enough that rich individuals cant multi dig, but cheap enough so a town can dig day after day to keep FFing on a server alive.

2. "Make it a time limit." - Sometimes people goof. They mean to dig a Medium at prime time but accidentally dig a small, so they dig another medium forts a few minutes later and let the opposing alliance know that the small is cancelled.

There are legitimate reasons to need to dig two forts in a short time span, that is why it failed in the past and will fail again. I hate multis since they take people away from real battles... but I'd still vote against this proposal.

2. If the one that should dig a medium, doesn't know the difference in size... get another member of town/alliance to dig... one that can tell the difference.

An individual timer on digs would be useful, while not preventing multies. Multies will just require multiple players digging, which requires weird things called coordination and communication, which also are vital components for succesful fortfighting.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's ruining the whole idea of having FF's to begin with. Owning a fort is an honor and town points for the owners. Forts are getting flipped back and forth like flipping pancakes. You might as well just start making deals with alliances to trade forts back and forth, if you are going to just give it back anyway, and save everyone the confusion and the headaches. When you have 3 battles dug within a few minutes of each other, all it does is split your forces and forts get lost by default from not having enough defenders because they either are scattered all over the map or they decide on one battle to go to , and the ones that get lost that were multis are given back. It makes no dang sense and it's not FUN to play that way. Last post on this subject since Anny is mostly the one responding and she wants to dig multis so she's against it. Deny that if you can.

If you can get around the abuse prevention then please suggest how you can counter the measure. The link to the earlier thread regarding the same issue has been provided, so please read it before posting.

This is not even an idea, doesn't even follow the guidelines of posting an idea. Why would anyone bother to respond?

 

[DeletedUser36979]

This is not even an idea, doesn't even follow the guidelines of posting an idea. Why would anyone bother to respond?

Valid question.
I respond because something needs to be done to FF's; 1 player popping turtle speed to dig 10 forts in 10 minutes, and then not attending any is bad, hence the need for an individual timer on digging.
But an alliance sending 3 guys to dig a fort each to scatter the enemy is a great tactic, also used in the real world, and it should be possible to do, so serverwide time-out on a dig would just ruin it. (Just park at Awesomnia, and dig once every 24h, in server primetime, and FF's will be ruined for many)

The fort-swapping could easily be fixed: Make it impossible for a member-town to leave. That would make it impossible to just give a fort back, due to multies (or tactical parallel skin-attacks), or any other reason you might have. Then ownership changes will need a fight

Why did you respond, Introvert Mj? What did you contribute with?

 

[DeletedUser]

Why did you respond, Introvert Mj? What did you contribute with?

My response was intended for Mustang Kate only, not you or the others debating the issue in this thread. I pointed out the fact that the 'idea' does not follow the guidelines for posting and idea and completely ignores the Abuse Prevention part of it. This is basic forum protocol, if this was intended to be a discussion it should have been in the Saloon.