(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.

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
think another reason would luv to see some of these old worlds merged is keenly aware there is yet another tactic of building overpowered teams in worlds, take all fort in about 5 worlds, then come to smaller worlds to impose some half baked story about maybe 1 or 2 worlds that they dont dominate yet in order to muck up and create one sided battles in small servers, or justify win by numbers 1 hour between battle multi digs. Again recognize some value multis, but infridging on others isnt even considered by them. If older worlds merged, would create more activity in general via people will get more active, rather then this okay well killed one world now lets go to next then next .. in a dying game. Again funny what you can see when in many worlds. Colo i commend them for not allowing that to happen, keep up good work!
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
While I support this in general;

There is one thing to consider though.. People in charge will change eventually and the new one(s) might not share the same mindset.

So while giving more room-permission to use initiative to them is welcome.. Better not go too far.

I mean current rules are quite vague and not much useful/player friendly so there definitely is a need of change for sure.
But how much is what I'm not sure of.
 

foscock

Well-Known Member
Goob, you poll is evenly divided, just shut it down and find something else to do
While I support this in general;

There is one thing to consider though.. People in charge will change eventually and the new one(s) might not share the same mindset.

So while giving more room-permission to use initiative to them is welcome.. Better not go too far.

I mean current rules are quite vague and not much useful/player friendly so there definitely is a need of change for sure.
But how much is what I'm not sure of.
Raidertr, you don't even play, as you've stated a few days ago.

In fact, without you lame stroking of diggo we wouldn't have this tower situation in ff's. You bleated about "just giive us the tower change" for so long, they actually did it. So, just go back to whatever it is you ae good at, and leave the west alone. You. more then any mod or CM, are responsible for the lame situation in the game now. So please give us all a break, and shut up, for now, and forever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Guess fos has lost his mind.
That's probably raiders fault too.

No one wanted stronger towers in isolation, but that's what we ended with after inno ditched three quarters of what we were testing after the IFBC.

Fwiw stronger towers made sense with the formula changes, less so without. No ones happy but it's not exactly worse than before the changes when attacks won every battle, is it?
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Guess fos has lost his mind.
That's probably raiders fault too.

No one wanted stronger towers in isolation, but that's what we ended with after inno ditched three quarters of what we were testing after the IFBC.

Fwiw stronger towers made sense with the formula changes, less so without. No ones happy but it's not exactly worse than before the changes when attacks won every battle, is it?

Well, attacks winning every battle would be easier to address with cap adjustments; too bad we didn’t figure that possibility out back in the early days of Union...
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Sure, but cap adjustments alone wouldn't do anything to address underlying issues, plus numbers were changed in the post-ifbc testing, along a couple of other minor changes that didn't really solve anything.

Yeah, but by then much of the damage (player loss/disenchantment) was already done and the combination of changes implemented along with the release of cortina and the reluctance to undo or counteract the changes put things in any even worse state. Cap changes and downgrades have helped, but the terms/conditions for using them can pretty much only be found on Colorado (I’m working on something to try to make this more viable on other worlds)
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
Yeah, but by then much of the damage (player loss/disenchantment) was already done and the combination of changes implemented along with the release of cortina and the reluctance to undo or counteract the changes put things in any even worse state. Cap changes and downgrades have helped, but the terms/conditions for using them can pretty much only be found on Colorado (I’m working on something to try to make this more viable on other worlds)
The longer the current situation drags on for, the greater will be the attrition on players. Of all worlds, most would argue Colo is the healthiest. Not sure I would want to go to any medical facility where the focus is on treating the healthiest and abandoning the terminally ill to their own devices.
 

Valosi

New Member
How something is worded can make all the difference between it being a positive and a negative. The proposal as a whole isn't a bad one, but I think the wording should be made both clearer and less wordy. Having slogged through the entire thread, I noticed a few key observations:

1. This proposal is mean primarily to clarify how moderators judge the validity of fort battles, NOT to set new rules on how players themselves can behave.
2. The proposal is worded in a way many - especially new players - may not understand.
3. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the "mitigating circumstances" section fails to give a means for players to be proactive in applying for said circumstances.
4. There's inadequate distinction given overall between a single player town setting up multiple digs and a larger alliance, even though the latter has more impact than the former.
5. The discussion of support tickets is worded in a way that can certain players have deemed "oppressive", even though it's meant to be a disclaimer regarding INACTION rather than a declaration of action.
6. The proposal addresses smaller issues as opposed to big issues, so those seeing this as a new ruleset as opposed to a clarification of existing policy fail to see the relevance - BECAUSE of how this is worded as a ruleset.
7. The term "Abusive Fort Battles" is not clearly defined in a way that aligns with the rest of the proposal, so one or both need to be changed to correlate.
8. It should be clearly stated in this proposal that this is part of a process, not the basis of an immediate ruling against a specific player or group. This omission of due process in the wording again makes the proposal seem like a new ruleset as opposed to a clarification of existing policy and can be seen as antagonistic to many players who don't know that due process in these cases WILL still exist.

With these things in mind, here is a suggested (but far from perfect) rewording of the draft that will hopefully address some or all of the aforementioned concerns. Be warned, I have quoted the original proposal and left the rewrite a bit wordy so that it's easier for player to give feedback on specific sections and furthe pin down the wording:


Howdy Cowboys and Cowgirls,

The declaration of Abusive Fort Battles is a recurring problem on The West and can result in community dissatisfaction for this game feature and the game as a whole. Therefor we have come up with a local community rule for this frustrating situation.
Complaints regarding Abusive Fort Battles have been an ongoing problem in The West, with some servers having more issues than others. The following is a rules clarification to show how staff and moderators determine what constitutes an Abusive Fort Battle (ABF) and how we respond to such complaints.

Note that this game is released in multiple regions around the world and what constitutes problems for one region may not be an issue in another. As such, we cannot at this time request changes to the game code regarding AFBs but must instead moderate each region separately. This is our attempt to make the process more transparent as it applies to a specific region (in this case, the .net servers).

Definition: "Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. This can include:


Howdy Cowboys and Cowgirls,

The declaration of Abusive Fort Battles is a recurring problem on The West and can result in community dissatisfaction for this game feature and the game as a whole. Therefor we have come up with a local community rule for this frustrating situation.

"Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. We GENERALLY consider a battle to be an AFB if:
  1. Intentionally interfering with other's scheduled or planned battles
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours of a battle by a different alliance or non-allied player OR declaring any battles within a fixed window of time (not greater than 6 hours) established by alliances representing a majority of regular fort fighters for a recurring series of battles that are not part of that series of battles.
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours before or 2 hours after an Awesomia battle organized by The West Team.
  2. Declaring excessive numbers of "strategic multi" battles within a 1 hour window
    Generally >2 battles by the same player/town/alliance
  3. Declaring excessive numbers of battles in a 24 hours period
    • Declaring any battles within 6 hours of the previous battle when 4 or more battles are already scheduled,
    • OR, the same player declaring 3 or more battles in a 24 hours period,
    • OR, the same town/alliance declaring 4 or more battles in a 24 hours period.
  4. Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing
    • Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
      1. sets a topic directing offliners where to start and target
      2. recruits players to attend
      3. ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
      4. shows up to the battle themselves
      5. leads the attack
    • When a player repeatedly declares battles lacking these features, the community may report these battles as abusive regardless of whether they conflict with other battles. Whether or not action is taken with regards to the battle, the ticket history will be considered when contemplating action on future battles.

  1. Intentionally interfering with other's scheduled or planned battles
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours after another battle by someone not within the same alliance, OR declaring any battles that interfere with a scheduled series (defined as a recurring series of battles within a 6 hour timeframe by an alliance representing the majority of regular fort fighters).
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours before or 2 hours after an Awesomia battle organized by The West Team. Battles that were declared outside of this timeframe and coincide with an Awesomia battle are not considered an AFB.
  2. Declaring excessive numbers of "strategic multi" battles within a 1 hour window
    Generally >2 battles by the same player/town/alliance
  3. Declaring excessive numbers of battles in a 24 hours period
    • Declaring any battles within 6 hours of the previous battle when 4 or more battles are already scheduled,
    • OR, the same player declaring 3 or more battles in a 24 hours period,
    • OR, the same town/alliance declaring 4 or more battles in a 24 hours period.
  4. Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing
    • Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
      1. creates a topic directing offliners where to start and target (to help increase attendance)
      2. recruits online and/or players to attend (this may be in conjunction with an announcement topic or a separate effort)
      3. ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
      4. shows up to the battle themselves
      5. leads the attack
    • Note that a battle may still succeed when one or more of these features are not followed, the chances of a successful battle are reduced. We will usually try to work with players to help them declare more successful battles prior to considering any disciplinary actions.
    • If a player has repeatedly declared battles lacking these features, the community may report these battles as abusive regardless of whether they conflict with other battles. While we may not act on a particular battle, the ticket history will be considered in the event actions are taken against any given player.

Mitigating factors may include:

  1. Events that reward event currency, or quests that reward substantial awards for Fort Battle participation
    During these circumstances, no battle dug when there are no other battles during the same "quarter day" shall be punished (00:00-06:00, 06:00-12:00, 12:00-18:00, and 18:00-00:00), though they may be rescheduled to create a 3h gap to an earlier battle.
  2. Repeated failed "strategic multi" battles
    Each time an alliance attempts to employ the strategic multi tactic and fails to capture any fort while turning out >10 attackers on at least one of the battles, they shall be permitted an additional simultaneous attack in their next attempt.
  3. Compelling argument for the legitimate purpose, reasonable mistake, or exceptional circumstances for an otherwise abusive battle

These rules are unable to cover every eventuality.
The West Team will make decisions in any situation not covered by these measures.


There are always exceptions to rules, and we consider any mitigating factors prior to taking an official action. Mitigating factors may include:

  1. Events that reward event currency, or quests that reward substantial awards for Fort Battle participation
    During these circumstances, no battle dug when there are no other battles during the same "quarter day" shall be punished (00:00-06:00, 06:00-12:00, 12:00-18:00, and 18:00-00:00), though they may be rescheduled to create a 3h gap to an earlier battle.
  2. Repeated failed "strategic multi" battles
    Each time an alliance attempts to employ the strategic multi tactic and fails to capture any fort while turning out >10 attackers on at least one of the battles, they shall be permitted an additional simultaneous attack in their next attempt.
  3. Compelling argument for the legitimate purpose, reasonable mistake, or exceptional circumstances for an otherwise abusive battle
  4. When one alliance/town controls all forts, that controlling party may declare a free-for-all so that fort ownership redistributes across the server.
  5. The declaring party is a single player town that is unlikely to cause any significant disruptions to scheduled battles by larger parties.
Note: Every situation is unique, and other mitigating circumstances will also be considered on a case-by-case basis before any judgement is made the The West Team.

If you intend to declare a battle under mitigating circumstances, you may contact The West Team proactively to propose the battle and your reasons before officially declaring it. This helps us address any concerns more quickly, including any support tickets we may receive once the battle is declared.

What can you do?
In case you notice Abusive Fort Battles, please contact our support team as soon as possible. Always use the "Contests & Fort Battles" category to report such an incident with the correct World selection.

It is encouraged that the community coordinate to avoid the filing of multiple redundant tickets — only one ticket per abusive battle will be considered, redundant tickets may themselves be considered abusive.

What can you do?
If you notice Abusive Fort Battles taking place, please contact our support team as soon as possible so we can address the situation. Always use the "Contests & Fort Battles" category to report such an incident with the correct World selection.

Please do not flood us with report tickets on a single battle, as only one ticket is necessary. Any additional tickets for that battle will be deleted and spamming of tickets against a specific player or group may itself be treated as abusive behavior.

Remember, we can only act on an issue if we are aware of it, so AFBs that are not reported will not be addressed.

What will we do?

  • The West Team will analyze the situation and take appropriate steps as required. Usually when a world first faces such a problem we are going to consider increasing the declaration cost for battles within a certain time period; these changes will be always announced.
  • In the case the world has already have such settings applied and the problem persists, we reserve the possibility to warn and punish the players who are involved in the abuse.
  • Also, The West Team may (at its sole discretion) cancel or reschedule Fort Battles which are considered Abusive Fort Battles.

How will The West Team respond?
  • We will analyze the situation, including discussions with the party being accused and take appropriate steps as required. Potential steps may include:
  1. Coaching the offending player or group on any rules violations and how to avoid them in future.
  2. Rescheduling of one or more battles to remedy conflicts.
  3. Mediate in the event the report was due to a misunderstanding between parties.
  4. Examine the ticket history regarding a player or group to determine whether or not a violation was intentional.
  5. Dismiss a ticket if mitigating circumstances are found.
  6. Suspend or ban an account if there is an ongoing history of malicious behavior and other efforts have failed.
  • Usually when a world first faces such a problem we are going to consider increasing the declaration cost for battles within a certain time period; these changes will be always announced in the Saloon. For those that do not read the Saloon, we intend to also announce any changes during the daily login.
  • In the case the world has already have such settings applied and the problem persists, we reserve the possibility to warn and punish the players who are involved in the abuse after following due process (see above).
  • Also, The West Team may (at its sole discretion) cancel or reschedule Fort Battles which are considered Abusive Fort Battles.

Rescheduling battles

  • A battle may be rescheduled only if there are at least 6 hours before the start.
  • When a battle was cancelled or rescheduled it is announced via official channels:
    • in the world's saloon chat via Henry;
    • in this thread: Cancelled and rescheduled Fort Battles
  • Please note that we are not a 24/7 support system, therefore it may happen that we will not be able to react in timely manner and reschedule battles. We are sorry for these situations in advance.

Clarification on Rescheduling battles
  • A battle may be rescheduled only if there are at least 6 hours before the start.
  • When a battle was cancelled or rescheduled it is announced via official channels:
    • in the world's saloon chat via Henry;
    • in this thread: Cancelled and rescheduled Fort Battles
    • Certain rescheduled battles may also be announced by The West Team during daily login.
  • Please note that we are not a 24/7 support system, therefore it may happen that we will not be able to react in timely manner and reschedule battles. We are sorry for these situations in advance.

Remember, The West Team is a small group of people trying to address ongoing gameplay issues. We are not the developers, so our ability to serve the community is limited. We also understand that it's best to have a few, easy-to-understand rules than to bog players down with too many vague rules or have no rules at all.

Because we are a small team, we try to keep our efforts transparent so the community is guaranteed a voice in any new rules, changes to rules, or clarifications of existing rules. Your feedback is important to cleaning up the rules and making the game fun for as many people as possible.

We hope you like these changes and clarifications! Please if you have any feedback or questions feel free to ask it here or contact us!

Your The West Team



 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
How something is worded can make all the difference between it being a positive and a negative. The proposal as a whole isn't a bad one, but I think the wording should be made both clearer and less wordy. Having slogged through the entire thread, I noticed a few key observations:

1. This proposal is mean primarily to clarify how moderators judge the validity of fort battles, NOT to set new rules on how players themselves can behave.
2. The proposal is worded in a way many - especially new players - may not understand.
3. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the "mitigating circumstances" section fails to give a means for players to be proactive in applying for said circumstances.
4. There's inadequate distinction given overall between a single player town setting up multiple digs and a larger alliance, even though the latter has more impact than the former.
5. The discussion of support tickets is worded in a way that can certain players have deemed "oppressive", even though it's meant to be a disclaimer regarding INACTION rather than a declaration of action.
6. The proposal addresses smaller issues as opposed to big issues, so those seeing this as a new ruleset as opposed to a clarification of existing policy fail to see the relevance - BECAUSE of how this is worded as a ruleset.
7. The term "Abusive Fort Battles" is not clearly defined in a way that aligns with the rest of the proposal, so one or both need to be changed to correlate.
8. It should be clearly stated in this proposal that this is part of a process, not the basis of an immediate ruling against a specific player or group. This omission of due process in the wording again makes the proposal seem like a new ruleset as opposed to a clarification of existing policy and can be seen as antagonistic to many players who don't know that due process in these cases WILL still exist.

With these things in mind, here is a suggested (but far from perfect) rewording of the draft that will hopefully address some or all of the aforementioned concerns. Be warned, I have quoted the original proposal and left the rewrite a bit wordy so that it's easier for player to give feedback on specific sections and furthe pin down the wording:



Complaints regarding Abusive Fort Battles have been an ongoing problem in The West, with some servers having more issues than others. The following is a rules clarification to show how staff and moderators determine what constitutes an Abusive Fort Battle (ABF) and how we respond to such complaints.

Note that this game is released in multiple regions around the world and what constitutes problems for one region may not be an issue in another. As such, we cannot at this time request changes to the game code regarding AFBs but must instead moderate each region separately. This is our attempt to make the process more transparent as it applies to a specific region (in this case, the .net servers).

Definition: "Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. This can include:


Howdy Cowboys and Cowgirls,

The declaration of Abusive Fort Battles is a recurring problem on The West and can result in community dissatisfaction for this game feature and the game as a whole. Therefor we have come up with a local community rule for this frustrating situation.

"Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. We GENERALLY consider a battle to be an AFB if:


  1. Intentionally interfering with other's scheduled or planned battles
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours after another battle by someone not within the same alliance, OR declaring any battles that interfere with a scheduled series (defined as a recurring series of battles within a 6 hour timeframe by an alliance representing the majority of regular fort fighters).
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours before or 2 hours after an Awesomia battle organized by The West Team. Battles that were declared outside of this timeframe and coincide with an Awesomia battle are not considered an AFB.
  2. Declaring excessive numbers of "strategic multi" battles within a 1 hour window
    Generally >2 battles by the same player/town/alliance
  3. Declaring excessive numbers of battles in a 24 hours period
    • Declaring any battles within 6 hours of the previous battle when 4 or more battles are already scheduled,
    • OR, the same player declaring 3 or more battles in a 24 hours period,
    • OR, the same town/alliance declaring 4 or more battles in a 24 hours period.
  4. Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing
    • Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
      1. creates a topic directing offliners where to start and target (to help increase attendance)
      2. recruits online and/or players to attend (this may be in conjunction with an announcement topic or a separate effort)
      3. ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
      4. shows up to the battle themselves
      5. leads the attack
    • Note that a battle may still succeed when one or more of these features are not followed, the chances of a successful battle are reduced. We will usually try to work with players to help them declare more successful battles prior to considering any disciplinary actions.
    • If a player has repeatedly declared battles lacking these features, the community may report these battles as abusive regardless of whether they conflict with other battles. While we may not act on a particular battle, the ticket history will be considered in the event actions are taken against any given player.




There are always exceptions to rules, and we consider any mitigating factors prior to taking an official action. Mitigating factors may include:

  1. Events that reward event currency, or quests that reward substantial awards for Fort Battle participation
    During these circumstances, no battle dug when there are no other battles during the same "quarter day" shall be punished (00:00-06:00, 06:00-12:00, 12:00-18:00, and 18:00-00:00), though they may be rescheduled to create a 3h gap to an earlier battle.
  2. Repeated failed "strategic multi" battles
    Each time an alliance attempts to employ the strategic multi tactic and fails to capture any fort while turning out >10 attackers on at least one of the battles, they shall be permitted an additional simultaneous attack in their next attempt.
  3. Compelling argument for the legitimate purpose, reasonable mistake, or exceptional circumstances for an otherwise abusive battle
  4. When one alliance/town controls all forts, that controlling party may declare a free-for-all so that fort ownership redistributes across the server.
  5. The declaring party is a single player town that is unlikely to cause any significant disruptions to scheduled battles by larger parties.
Note: Every situation is unique, and other mitigating circumstances will also be considered on a case-by-case basis before any judgement is made the The West Team.

If you intend to declare a battle under mitigating circumstances, you may contact The West Team proactively to propose the battle and your reasons before officially declaring it. This helps us address any concerns more quickly, including any support tickets we may receive once the battle is declared.



What can you do?
If you notice Abusive Fort Battles taking place, please contact our support team as soon as possible so we can address the situation. Always use the "Contests & Fort Battles" category to report such an incident with the correct World selection.

Please do not flood us with report tickets on a single battle, as only one ticket is necessary. Any additional tickets for that battle will be deleted and spamming of tickets against a specific player or group may itself be treated as abusive behavior.

Remember, we can only act on an issue if we are aware of it, so AFBs that are not reported will not be addressed.



How will The West Team respond?
  • We will analyze the situation, including discussions with the party being accused and take appropriate steps as required. Potential steps may include:
  1. Coaching the offending player or group on any rules violations and how to avoid them in future.
  2. Rescheduling of one or more battles to remedy conflicts.
  3. Mediate in the event the report was due to a misunderstanding between parties.
  4. Examine the ticket history regarding a player or group to determine whether or not a violation was intentional.
  5. Dismiss a ticket if mitigating circumstances are found.
  6. Suspend or ban an account if there is an ongoing history of malicious behavior and other efforts have failed.
  • Usually when a world first faces such a problem we are going to consider increasing the declaration cost for battles within a certain time period; these changes will be always announced in the Saloon. For those that do not read the Saloon, we intend to also announce any changes during the daily login.
  • In the case the world has already have such settings applied and the problem persists, we reserve the possibility to warn and punish the players who are involved in the abuse after following due process (see above).
  • Also, The West Team may (at its sole discretion) cancel or reschedule Fort Battles which are considered Abusive Fort Battles.



Clarification on Rescheduling battles
  • A battle may be rescheduled only if there are at least 6 hours before the start.
  • When a battle was cancelled or rescheduled it is announced via official channels:
    • in the world's saloon chat via Henry;
    • in this thread: Cancelled and rescheduled Fort Battles
    • Certain rescheduled battles may also be announced by The West Team during daily login.
  • Please note that we are not a 24/7 support system, therefore it may happen that we will not be able to react in timely manner and reschedule battles. We are sorry for these situations in advance.

Remember, The West Team is a small group of people trying to address ongoing gameplay issues. We are not the developers, so our ability to serve the community is limited. We also understand that it's best to have a few, easy-to-understand rules than to bog players down with too many vague rules or have no rules at all.

Because we are a small team, we try to keep our efforts transparent so the community is guaranteed a voice in any new rules, changes to rules, or clarifications of existing rules. Your feedback is important to cleaning up the rules and making the game fun for as many people as possible.






I wish there was a heart button
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
. please dont be fooled this survey is by no means accurate nor complete/reflective of all .en players. Think many not voting as history does show that the squeaky troublemaker wheels seem to get the grease. I know i felt forced to disclose my vote of "no" to this proposal .. while believing that there is no valid reason for multis that should be allowed, but people just give up seeing that they arent being heard or if they speak up then got some weirdo spamming about you to try to alter perceptions/game elsewhere.

Perhaps i can ask inno why they allowed 5 multi digs in 5 min, after offensive players where spamming kill world, and offensive comments which good game play players have learnt best not to speak to in saloons and hope for fairness within inno (no not to ban players, to spread out battles). Know that several players did send in ticket to ask to be spread out, know this player is known to market theft and other undesirable game play but as not addressed players stop sending in tickets or stating their view here. Players that saw the 3 battles in 1 hour. My biggest reason for "nooooo dont post anything about multis in topic in saloon was simply didnt want to see the rush of playes that rely on multis to go digging, which we did see few in juarez, galv, houston each time brought up where easily impressionable players buy into the spam that us "crybabies" that should have equal right to say dont believe in multis, are running around trying to clear the propeganda they use to gain support in other worlds, creating one sided battles there. Right now juarez is being brought down by players returning and first act of business was mutli digging - 40 players have left the ff scene .. are they voting here? no. My vote for "no" was simply to make this go away because its creating opportunity for less then desirable players to alter game in worlds by ditching on players that are about good battles, keeping players in game, so forth. Wont even mention the perceptions about gringo sets being awarded and showing up in worlds, know others have spoke to that part.

I do agree with foscock, that there is a history here where the long term experienced players are kinda frustrated as seen how everything from union sets to mucking with towers where see in ff chat people saying why are they mucking around with it without moment to adjust to things or people spamming that yeah should be implemented in AZ or some other world where there is still old fashioned good battles. All that is out window if 84v42 teams of people who figured hey lets follow these squecky wheel troublemakers. Luv ya fos, i hate seeing you discouraged, keep telling people how much you have helped new players in game, grew players to luv this game by focusing on game as it was meant to be .. saw you shining with happy and enjoying game friends .. which .. for most of us .. is what game is about .. not forts or stupid multi digs or trying to alter game before battles even start.

If we publically state that we dont think stupid multis should be imposed on the community for any reason, these people make it their tactic to spam dislike towards honest players and we become the underdogs, every world (note how they dont discuss the 5 worlds they own all forts) .... no ofc this is not a complete nor accurate reflection of stuff Your not happy because you feel inno not listening to the more "play game via chaos and perceptions" players while the good game players feeling unheard as well .. kinda funny actually. If inno can explain why the 5 sets of what i feel most view as abusive multi digs in last while, as we just stopped asking for them to be dealt with and going to spend time trying to appeal to good players in community then maybe we can encourage others to speak up of what they value in game. we are able to explain better to help keep worlds going, right now juarez is being threatened to be multi dug and steal the 1.5 year established alternative dig day schedule while ganging up on our leader, lovely gal that has just been playing game for year but starting to see why people dont step up in leadership in game if they have to contend with these type of "squeaky wheels".
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Well, the survey is over. The result is one that could reasonably be used to justify almost any course of action.

My opinion is I should go back to the drawing board to draft a simpler, shorter, clearer statement of rules for public consumption and seperate internal guidance, and then proceed to sit on them unless and until a more pressing active situation comes back to the forefront and break it out only on the impacted world(s). In the meantime, handle the tickets that come in as before, with discretion and input from the Team.
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
Well, the survey is over. The result is one that could reasonably be used to justify almost any course of action.

My opinion is I should go back to the drawing board to draft a simpler, shorter, clearer statement of rules for public consumption and seperate internal guidance, and then proceed to sit on them unless and until a more pressing active situation comes back to the forefront and break it out only on the impacted world(s). In the meantime, handle the tickets that come in as before, with discretion and input from the Team.

With all due respect Goober that result as a sample fails in every way to justify any course of action at all.... its pretty even and as a sample clearly shows there isnt any "great majority" clamouring for any changes or more rules.. If there is anything shown from this, it is for nothing on this topics front to be done at all and leave alone as is. Just like other contentious topics like being dueled when berry picking or as a worker in construction clothes etc or buying something on the world market with anothers name on, stealing anothers town or booting out everyone when given a hat or spying etc etc, there are many topics hotly contended and always were, but left alone for a reason, its contentious :-D ... you just rediscovered one thats all

On a serious note

There has always been ways to deal with the truly disruptive who do it for the sake of hurting the gameplay,, most all balanced players know the extremes and thankfully rare situations have to be dealt with in equal but regrettably extreme and rare measure. In such situations use the arbitrary but final decision powers invested as a Moderator/CM, to protect the game and players from the tiny few who, from time to time need such attn.... flex when required and dont feel bad about it or shy do the hard part of the job sometimes. The player base will support you

As past experience and examples has shown, there is nearly always an overwhelming support from the player base for . net team in those rare situations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
How something is worded can make all the difference between it being a positive and a negative. The proposal as a whole isn't a bad one, but I think the wording should be made both clearer and less wordy
This.
- - - - - -
If only foscock was right about Inno listening to player(s), lol.
My signature says enough.

And as for Vic, I guess he decided to take over my negativity for whatever reason.

Wish I knew why he thinks status-quo is better than trying to do something, even though with quite limited powers.

"Waste of time" is it? Well that's up to Goob to decide.
 
Last edited:

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
thank you for efforts goober, know ur trying your best and know not easy feat., obviously there is different views, i think a good measuring stick in any game is does an action in game put one group of unexpecting players at disadvantage where the outcome of battles can reasonably be determined far before the battle actually occurs. THink the different views are from players that like to gain the overwhelming numbers then impose what they feel is fair and just on others that even tho played for 12+ years never had felt burning desire to dig multis or other "undesirable" game play. The fear have is the impact on other players not considered or the half stories of other worlds are crossworld to alter games there. ie juarez has lost about 40 active ff'ers in last few months, with multis being just the latest). That is kinda how im rationalizing that we should be focusing on more upfront attempts to create fair battles, to me, losing 40 players in short 3 months means someone doing something wrong.

please advise of how multis will be handled in interim so we can communicate with others and dont have to bicker of what one feels is good game vs not.

lol sooner then later would be appreciated, in addition to the 2 mutli digs this week with 5min-1 hour between battles, we have also been told they will deny our alternative dig schedule day and curently while writing this got another multi in queue while we are shorthanded team. As said, the promo of some to do underhanded often results in players running to do just that as the good players are muted (recognize my comments deleted).
 
Last edited:

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
thank you for efforts goober, know ur trying your best and know not easy feat., obviously there is different views, i think a good measuring stick in any game is does an action in game put one group of unexpecting players at disadvantage where the outcome of battles can reasonably be determined far before the battle actually occurs. THink the different views are from players that like to gain the overwhelming numbers then impose what they feel is fair and just on others that even tho played for 12+ years never had felt burning desire to dig multis or other "undesirable" game play. The fear have is the impact on other players not considered or the half stories of other worlds are crossworld to alter games there. ie juarez has lost about 40 active ff'ers in last few months, with multis being just the latest). That is kinda how im rationalizing that we should be focusing on more upfront attempts to create fair battles, to me, losing 40 players in short 3 months means someone doing something wrong.

please advise of how multis will be handled in interim so we can communicate with others and dont have to bicker of what one feels is good game vs not..
Juarez didn't lose "40 players in short 3 months". It lost them over last 2 years, ever since your side won all forts and instead of balancing the sides, kept giving fort donations to losing side and then digging over and over same forts and transferring them back every time they got lost. Already tried tactics from previous worlds that you dominated as well. I find that worse and more toxic for FF scene than ocassional multies of desperate underdogs. Not to mention your bullying and name calling in saloon chats and on this forum, 24/7 toxic whispers trying to poach some more for your already dominant side and then acting as a victim when you are called upon it.
 

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
to correct that statement, not that it should be included but 80% of the forts were won by our side and lost by our side about 2 years ago, when some players were on the server and fighting it out with other players. The current leader was not even on server until year ago as there was no battles that occurred for good period of time when the same players run from one new world to next creating their superalliances and taking forts, it just so happened whoever the leaders in juarez won forts from you before all left juarez. Our current fort fight leader inherited that forts and yes have given back the 10 forts over the last year that won. In regards to the rest of the insults, i recognzie everytime i respond back my messages are deleted. Ofc i am bit tired of people spamming that i am bully or name calling when that is untrue, and opposite happens but expecting that there are group of players that use the slander players to alter games as their main tatic.

expecting this message to be deleted again as seeing people can slander others and not much innocent players can do. The 40 players, as seen in fort stats, pertains to the active ff'ers that are not currently ff'ing during the last 3 months. Prior to that point, juarez was a pretty peaceful server, had decent battles, not one sided where players take all like lets vegas or idaho where quality of ff's are very low and about to die off any week now. THere was alot of good people putting effort into game and was quite enjoyable and yes, forgotten server by the troublemakers.

To go on as know likely will be deleted, the houston story is like this: we had 0 forts, we kept trying, we lost 110 battles in row, we didnt give up or spam kill world. Then 5 of the leaders in opposition spammed kill houston they were done with it and encouraged players to go to colo .. even created mutlis to spam worlds to annoy saloons to declare they will kill colo like they did houston. There were some that wanted to keep ff's going, our team actively recruited and got about 50 players for opposition and offerred back half forts. No other opposition in any other world has done more, sadly the opposition eventually bought into the demand to boycott battles and we did win all forts. But we did keep the server active for 6 more months and proud of that, at times more active then even colo. Some of the players ran to juarez with uneducated comments as above stating that if you dare join our side then your supporting "terrorists in ukraine if you join with annie or bonnie. In galv, that server died off 2 years ago .. ironically by multis. Some players would multi dig frequently. People in general didnt enjoy multis and would join us. If we dared dig a fort, they would immediately dig a multi on us, we would "cry" multi then after while people just left that world and we are lucky to get 12 players showing up to battles now. What annoys me as player is that see some spamming half baked stories about houston or galv to other worlds in lets say fairbanks saloon where they have gained double number support (penalizing those innocent players) and more recently seeing the drag houston half baked stories to con the masses as justification to gang up on plyaers and have one sided battles or now getting chronic multis in juarez. Feel guilty innocent players impacted.

Again .... very aware the tactic of some playesr is to spread fake propegand to alter battles even before they are fought. IN older worlds vets know bette in newwer worlds, you excel as people buy into it and means players with similar strategies are able to end worlds really before they start, luckily when this type of player leaves and focuses on diffeent worlds, other good people/players step up and put in actual work to balance and have good battle, tho often small in size. We certainly dont make fuss when groups take all forts in new wolds or world like idaho as honestlly can only hlep some worlds, so focus on worlds that have better quality battles tho small.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
to correct that statement, not that it should be included but 80% of the forts were won by our side and lost by our side about 2 years ago, when yourself (as player lukecowwalker/gorgeous blonde/florence welsh) was on the server and fighting it out with other players. The current leader was not even on server until year ago as there was no battles that occurred for good period of time when the same players run from one new world to next creating their superalliances and taking forts, it just so happened whoever the leaders in juarez won forts from you before all left juarez. Our current fort fight leader inherited that forts and yes have given back the 10 forts over the last year that won. In regards to the rest of the insults, i recognzie everytime i respond back my messages are deleted. Ofc i am bit tired of people spamming that i am bully or name calling when that is untrue, and opposite happens but expecting that there are group of players that use the slander players to alter games as their main tatic.

expecting this message to be deleted again as seeing people can slander others and not much innocent players can do. The 40 players, as seen in fort stats, pertains to the active ff'ers that are not currently ff'ing during the last 3 months. Prior to that point, juarez was a pretty peaceful server, had decent battles, not one sided where players take all like lets vegas or idaho where quality of ff's are very low and about to die off any week now. THere was alot of good people putting effort into game and was quite enjoyable and yes, forgotten server by the troublemakers.
Don't make me laugh and thanks for proving my point about slandering the players. Second, good quality battles on Juarez until 3 months ago? I guess if someone considers as a good quality 30 vs 20 fights where one side always digs for several days in a row the same forts that are constantly transferred to other side and just sits and enjoys farming bonds and exp in one sided slaughters for months (or years like you did on Galveston and Houston). I guess the fact that these worlds have less than 300 players now say it all how enjoyable and fun these "good quality" battles really are.
 
Last edited:

Annie-Bell

Well-Known Member
battles in juarez 3 months ago were 49v59 or somewhere about there. Not huge for sure, but more then most worlds. Already explained how millsbd crew killed off galv, and tho i was sad to see that world die out, will always remembe it being great server in glory days. I dont understand why you came back after 2 years once you saw the call on to create one sided battles in juarez. But if you would like to put to test, please actually review ff's I purposely avoid new servers as many of my friends do, we go to occassional ff's but know the type of game play some groups do, we basically wait until they run to next world as more interested in the good game, long game and trying to hold onto players that remain in worlds. The 40 some players i do hope we get back, they were from both sides. I personally have spent my time avoiding playing in worlds where up against these type of players and rarely even talk. I am amused seeing yourself and others spamming stories about me or friends or worlds that you have no experience in anymore in saloon in those worlds. In terms of digging, i personally was never involved in digging, the ff and alliance leader, who i commend on keeping that world going after all the leaders abandoned dug every second day leaving space for the opposition to dig, as fair leader. This concept was what they were bullying the 1 year ff leader newe to game about before the scarlet kisses multi dig .. stating that they have returned and will be denying the alternative dig days and will be attempting to push out the 30 some players left on our team ... multis, again is just one part of the tactics.

Alas luke, you and victor just made all of us look dumb best for me not to go on as know this is just how you get more players joining the underhanded players. Recognize this is all ba ba ba ba hooooeeey and i got baited to defend myself :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top