(Interim) Local Community Rule on abusive Fort Fights

Do you support fully enacting this rule?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 42.4%
  • Yes, but I would like to see changes (posted in comments)

    Votes: 7 10.6%
  • No, but perhaps with changes (posted in comments)

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • No

    Votes: 27 40.9%

  • Total voters
    66
Status
Not open for further replies.

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
@Syntex Why are these rules being forced upon Community when the opinions are clearly divided and multies have not been an issue on most of the worlds besides the isolated incidents?
This feedback will be considered and whatever final rule is released (if any) will be modified in light of this feedback. Not everything will be incorporated of course ( many points are in conflict after all) but I figure y’all would appreciate the opportunity to have input. .
 

drphil3

Member
am just one of many that dont think there is good reason for multis, know that in long run people in community decide to not support thankfully. So ... steal huggles from canu!!! agree with your comments! :)

and also steals huggles from foscock .. think there are so many much bigger issues to talk about and try to fix. There are the inno - instigated issues like nugget sets, or lack of investment in game, or bugs in game or that just looking at why the game itself has shrunk to shadow of what it used to be. Secondary to that is our players make their own issues in games that cause worlds to shrink ... many different things but guess when i see people go on about things like formula changes or towers changes or rules on multis where even the groups that have to deal with the multis continually arent fussing much (tho it is tiring, uses buffs of innocent players who dont have edge of what ff to attend, and know its not about good battles), even those players arent making fuss ... havent seen anyone complain about the multis they deal with publically, just aware anytime this policy put out there then we experience more multis (just had more in juarez). But think worrying about the little things and ignoring the big things probably not wisest thing to do.
and this is only one of the many reasons i don't join towns anymore.
I will join an ff if there's lack on either side and the spirit is willing but in general, like a lot of players who have been around longer, there's just not a lot in them for me anymore outside of a few quick bonds......if that.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Well, I agree that this should've been done years ago, but so should've many other things.
Sooo.. I will take "better late than never" approach.

While some modifications might be needed..
It's good that there will be some definitions at last to give some room to enforcers.

So yeah, thanks for your time Goob.
Wish you had more power to do much more to make the game "less dead" but yeah.
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
I know probably sound like a repeat record of many players that said this in past .. but has inno considered merging some worlds? Everyone has own opinion of what worlds are still "breathing" and which are not .. and each of them got there for million different reasons. but if few were merged would help solve some of these player inflicted issues wouldnt it?

sorry for old record .. puts on digital tunes :D
 

roland jacobs

Well-Known Member
I know probably sound like a repeat record of many players that said this in past .. but has inno considered merging some worlds? Everyone has own opinion of what worlds are still "breathing" and which are not .. and each of them got there for million different reasons. but if few were merged would help solve some of these player inflicted issues wouldnt it?

sorry for old record .. puts on digital tunes :D
I just asked syntex that question and got the canned response of "activity level". I think as long as people continue to log into <insert dead world here> and set jobs/participate in events, inno seems to think the world is active. I don't know how you can fully play 10 worlds, but part of that activity must be keeping <worlds> alive.

Oh, and Syntex, your comment about "starting a new world", that's one of the issues with the game!
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
I am definitely for merging lower populated worlds, but I fear most of them constist of the same players

They do by enlarge yes, and often those same active players keep most of the old worlds ticking along to varying degrees ... theres Something called "Price's Law." (also known as Price's Square Root Law) which states that 50% of all work will be done by the square root of the total number of people who take part in the work. Prices Law and it can also be applied who does all the complaining, crying and whining too .. so theres that .. ;)

So 10 (10%) of the world population would make (50%) of the sales for Inno and or activity in FF etc. The other 90 (90%) people on a world would make the remaining 50% sales and or activity. Extrapolate this out across worlds and I think youll find roughly its the same results of the total player base mostly active in FF across the server and 10% or the players will make up 50% of all FF activity etc .. especially the older worlds where most casuals and one world players long since moved on or quit, often all thats left are the die hards and same FF base and or big spenders reluctant to dump so much investment.. its mostly the same players left now doing FF on all old worlds from what I see and definitely 50% .. just need to look at westforts and look, the data is all there for all to see.

We all say hello to or shoot at each other 1 hr to the next on the next world that same evening all the time... in fact more than 1 battle same time on multiple worlds has become very common and somewhat of a running joke. That prime time is for the same people to enjoy every evening hopping from one world to another just doing FF while the other 50% never get an online battle. Some alliances even try to stagger their calling to suit in order to facilitate this, just another strategy the most active FF players have learned over time, but ofc it dosnt make much fun for the other 50% who live lives outside these prime times. Thats possibly also another reason FF number drop off now so fast on new worlds... id not bother at all if i could only ever be offline at battle times due to where i lived or job etc restricted to just 8pm - 11pm sever which has always been prime calling time .. but to have all in this time period imo is very bad news in the longterm, Colorado at least has learned this over time hence its popularity still and reflected calls sometimes way outside of prime.

The only 1 true exception i know of is Colorado where players move about all the time and its a managed system but then its still the same 10% of players doing all the work making sure of that and kudos to one and all there for so much effort over the years to keep it so active for all. So Price's Law still applies.

Merging worlds would i suspect become very problematic with so little player base left now, it wasnt before with 10,000 on them when worlds closed as in the past. ofc no one would notice so much with a vastly bigger player base .. now many older worlds have just 500 or so on them now to make any difference youd have to merge half a dozen worlds to make it worthwhile as always its diminishing returns and lots of wastage. Approximately 20% would vanish as dead/neglected accounts and probably 50% on more than 2 being merged leaving choices of which toon to keep and what to dump... so thats another few hundred accounts also lost by deletion ...

Lets say 6 worlds got merged 500 left on each world so total 3000

Naturally deleted 20% 3000 = 2400 left
Multi world players - 50% of 2400 = 1200 left over 6 worlds ... thats not really much of a healthy world base left but at least it might be uber active for a while.

Just opening migrations or merging at this stage might well for Inno possibly make far less revenue when that same Prices Law works re who spends on each world etc is taken into account. Inno ofc are trying to manage the decline thats all and max its $ to cost ratio.....and ill wager Inno know this too and all about Price's Law.

Any old world that has a an alliance which owns all forts unless its about to close anyway and keeps them instead of immediately dumping at least half is doomed to die fast as we all know .. ( The only methods ive seen actually work )

As a perfect example. El Dorado and Houston, two im on which im aware are like this .. it dosnt matter why how or who, only it is currently this way. If your in such a group or town leader of etc once a world is totally controlled and do nothing about that but simply gloat instead of vacating all forts or disbanding / splitting the alliance up right down the middle allowing for a total reset or something as drastic ? then your a total njub and deserve the coming wasteland you have created, not migration in order to repeat the same mistakes elsewhere ;) ... this was where multis use once came in too, that worlds would not become easy to control, own and were I think a failsafe, to allow the dynamics of the game to shift as they once did, unlike now. The loud whiners and ticket makers about multis ofc are only the same 10% prices Law not the other 90% of players who chug along happy regardless.

A few people might now prefer a safe environment and sanitised The West but the vast majority of vets and this games once 100 x + popularity say it was far better with less rules, more multis and total chaos allowing for things now impossible on this fast now dying game.. shame but all things end.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
They do by enlarge yes, and often those same active players keep most of the old worlds ticking along to varying degrees ... theres Something called "Price's Law." (also known as Price's Square Root Law) which states that 50% of all work will be done by the square root of the total number of people who take part in the work. Prices Law and it can also be applied who does all the complaining, crying and whining too .. so theres that .. ;)

So 10 (10%) of the world population would make (50%) of the sales for Inno and or activity in FF etc. The other 90 (90%) people on a world would make the remaining 50% sales and or activity. Extrapolate this out across worlds and I think youll find roughly its the same results of the total player base mostly active in FF across the server and 10% or the players will make up 50% of all FF activity etc .. especially the older worlds where most casuals and one world players long since moved on or quit, often all thats left are the die hards and same FF base and or big spenders reluctant to dump so much investment.. its mostly the same players left now doing FF on all old worlds from what I see and definitely 50% .. just need to look at westforts and look, the data is all there for all to see.

We all say hello to or shoot at each other 1 hr to the next on the next world that same evening all the time... in fact more than 1 battle same time on multiple worlds has become very common and somewhat of a running joke. That prime time is for the same people to enjoy every evening hopping from one world to another just doing FF while the other 50% never get an online battle. Some alliances even try to stagger their calling to suit in order to facilitate this, just another strategy the most active FF players have learned over time, but ofc it dosnt make much fun for the other 50% who live lives outside these prime times. Thats possibly also another reason FF number drop off now so fast on new worlds... id not bother at all if i could only ever be offline at battle times due to where i lived or job etc restricted to just 8pm - 11pm sever which has always been prime calling time .. but to have all in this time period imo is very bad news in the longterm, Colorado at least has learned this over time hence its popularity still and reflected calls sometimes way outside of prime.

The only 1 true exception i know of is Colorado where players move about all the time and its a managed system but then its still the same 10% of players doing all the work making sure of that and kudos to one and all there for so much effort over the years to keep it so active for all. So Price's Law still applies.

Merging worlds would i suspect become very problematic with so little player base left now, it wasnt before with 10,000 on them when worlds closed as in the past. ofc no one would notice so much with a vastly bigger player base .. now many older worlds have just 500 or so on them now to make any difference youd have to merge half a dozen worlds to make it worthwhile as always its diminishing returns and lots of wastage. Approximately 20% would vanish as dead/neglected accounts and probably 50% on more than 2 being merged leaving choices of which toon to keep and what to dump... so thats another few hundred accounts also lost by deletion ...

Lets say 6 worlds got merged 500 left on each world so total 3000

Naturally deleted 20% 3000 = 2400 left
Multi world players - 50% of 2400 = 1200 left over 6 worlds ... thats not really much of a healthy world base left but at least it might be uber active for a while.

Just opening migrations or merging at this stage might well for Inno possibly make far less revenue when that same Prices Law works re who spends on each world etc is taken into account. Inno ofc are trying to manage the decline thats all and max its $ to cost ratio.....and ill wager Inno know this too and all about Price's Law.

Any old world that has a an alliance which owns all forts unless its about to close anyway and keeps them instead of immediately dumping at least half is doomed to die fast as we all know .. ( The only methods ive seen actually work )

As a perfect example. El Dorado and Houston, two im on which im aware are like this .. it dosnt matter why how or who, only it is currently this way. If your in such a group or town leader of etc once a world is totally controlled and do nothing about that but simply gloat instead of vacating all forts or disbanding / splitting the alliance up right down the middle allowing for a total reset or something as drastic ? then your a total njub and deserve the coming wasteland you have created, not migration in order to repeat the same mistakes elsewhere ;) ... this was where multis use once came in too, that worlds would not become easy to control, own and were I think a failsafe, to allow the dynamics of the game to shift as they once did, unlike now. The loud whiners and ticket makers about multis ofc are only the same 10% prices Law not the other 90% of players who chug along happy regardless.

A few people might now prefer a safe environment and sanitised The West but the vast majority of vets and this games once 100 x + popularity say it was far better with less rules, more multis and total chaos allowing for things now impossible on this fast now dying game.. shame but all things end.
I wish I'd had the opportunity to save it, but the "longest streak" on each world of the easter event was a bit telling; Even the lowest number was well into the 300s and I don't think that's possible without at least some nugget spending. Sure, maybe it was just free nuggets, but I'm not convinced the spending of free nuggets is tracked differently from paid nuggets when it comes to world closure decisions... (I have no inside information on the subject)
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
But back to topic at hand .. mutlis ..

the two concerns i have is that what was deemed as underhanded multis will now be forgiven, nay even promoted, while the 1 players multis that dont really impact much will be labelled abusive. As well if more than one player reports a multi, they themselves will be deemed as abusive? seems odd.

for example, in one world had to deal with 5 multi digs in 5 min, which we didnt complain just dealt with it, tried to get inno to spread out a bit but think too busy or whatever and then another world 3 multis in 1 hour. Given their behaviour while digging, it sure didnt feel like it was to "benefit the server" as they were spamming kill that certain world while digging .. so now thinking if we defended all 5 in 5 min and 3 in 1 hour that they are now able to do 6 multis in 6 min and 4 multis in 1hour 15 min? that seems odd to me, rewarding players to mutli and while those that dont are in dark and have to use turtles and such that will never be replaced. (5 multis dug by deadeye jerry)

Also be very careful about the concept of punishing players for reporting multis, the diggers may claim it is stratgic multi and meet the criteria you set forward but exclude the story behind it but those that are there and have seen the in and outs of it may take offense to something as extreme as 5 multis in 5 min

To me, this is examples of where just going to wear out players that dont feel need to either do underhanded stuff or promo it to take advantage to overkill in other worlds. Just thinking.
 

szycopath

Well-Known Member
There isnt any issues anywhere that i can see either.. the occasional spam mutli njub so what ? .. theres a ban hammer for those "special players"and thats what the vague rules on rules interpretation are for stating... "a moderators interpretation and decision is final" no explanation required and thats that..

It was fine for 13 years ....
we did have some ****show because of this on colorado but that was like 2 years ago too :D
 

foscock

Well-Known Member
The comment about someone needing to justify his position is spot on. The last multi that actually made anyone care was like 6-7 years ago, and yes, that includes all the dopey NP digs. They were just minor inconveniences. I guess continually adjusting tower strength to get the same predictable results isn't a long-term career path.

Merging dead worlds would be brilliant, but not gonna happen as long as inno thinks there's another euro to be milked. Vote with your feet & your wallet.

The sad thing is, right now, only 75 players have voted on this. So basically the sample size is so small it's a useless poll, but reflects how little regard players hold this game and the people behind it.
 

Al35ul

Well-Known Member
I have deleted a few (just a few) comments that were off topic - please remember to stay on topic. Whilst discussion on particular worlds is more than welcomed, pointing fingers at other players is not. If you've got beef (no, not that beef) with other players, then you are welcomed to take it to a private message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top