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 55 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.
It’s been a saloon topic on all worlds (though was replaced on Fairbank due to the German job titles there)Given the avg number of people is/have been visiting the forums for the last.. about half decade.. I believe that 55 is more than enough.
(Idk if it was advertised in the game though)
Too many rules ruin the gameplay, no matter how much a few people cry for more rules. All the recent changes have contributed to the drop in people who play FFs.The following is a working draft on guidance for policing abusive Fort Fights. This rule is not entirely finalized but is being posted in advance, as it will be fully enforced on the current active Speed World, and will be applied on a case by case basis otherwise.
Outside of the speed world, until finalized, generally only warnings will be issued. In the event of flagrant excessive abuse, The West International Team reserves the right to take such actions it deems appropriate to the situation.
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. This can include:
- 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 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.
- Declaring excessive numbers of "strategic multi" battles within a 1 hour window
Generally >2 battles by the same player/town/alliance- 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.
- Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing
- Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
- sets a topic directing offliners where to start and target
- recruits players to attend
- ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
- shows up to the battle themselves
- 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.
Mitigating factors may include:
- 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.- 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.- 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.
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 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.
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.
We hope you like these changes! Please if you have any feedback or questions feel free to ask it here or contact us!
Your The West Team
All games require rules. Lots of rules, and we have a story/adventure game - few rules and we have a sandbox/role-playing game.Too many rules ruin the gameplay, no matter how much a few people cry for more rules.
In which world(s) specifically? I'm interested, since Westforts indicates FF numbers are either stable or increased in prime time, when there's no multis - off prime's look decent on the active world too.All the recent changes have contributed to the drop in people who play FFs.
Well you don't even have a counter-argument, just "rules = bad, I'll do what I want despite anyone else" which is obviously rubbish.Just because someone is writting long messages here slagging off people repeatedly doesnt mean thier opinion should weigh more than someone who writes less often. Being relentless in posting so many times shouldnt make them automatically right
I suppose Login pop-up would prove more useful as majority never even opens the Saloon but I'm not sure if you were able to.It’s been a saloon topic on all worlds (though was replaced on Fairbank due to the German job titles there)
Irony is though, it's mostly negative comments in this topic rather than positive, and yet "Support" is higher when it comes to the poll even though very slightly.
(Not to mention the misunderstanding of some people)
And yea regardless of "pro-Anarchy" people's claims.. mostly anarchy is what caused the most damage to the game rather than not.
I suppose Login pop-up would prove more useful as majority never even opens the Saloon but I'm not sure if you were able to.
Either way I don't believe that attendance is bad at all.
Irony is though, it's mostly negative comments in this topic rather than positive, and yet "Support" is higher when it comes to the poll even though very slightly.
(Not to mention the misunderstanding of some people)
And yea regardless of "pro-Anarchy" people's claims.. mostly anarchy is what caused the most damage to the game rather than not.
I suppose Login pop-up would prove more useful as majority never even opens the Saloon but I'm not sure if you were able to.
Either way I don't believe that attendance is bad at all.
As this was at a more preliminary stage seeking feedback I figured using the forum would make more sense. If/when a formal rule for all worlds is ready I will push for the team to do a login poll either before or shortly after it is announced.
Honestly this was received a lot more negatively than I expected, and I believe @Oddersfield captured it best. Ultimately I wanted to remove as much discretion from myself as I reasonably could to avoid accusations of bias. Instead I should learn to have faith that I can earn the trust necessary to exercise some discretion without compromising my player liaison role.
We all know that.Actually Inno not spending any time advertising or listening to the player base a decade or more ago and since is what killed it .. and then V2 made it a lot worse, messing with duleing, forts, uber sets.. Union etc ... THATS whats killed it not a a few multis from time to time jesus..
What is it with people these days ? ... .... everyone backs up the man and being regulated now it seems, like people cant handle anything outside an ever smaller regulated and controlled box...
Lock me down n regulate me harder Daddy ........
I am sorry if you feel under appreciated that certainly is not the case. I think even those of us who dont agree fully with the proposal as it is are still very grateful to you for engaging and trying to find solutions that hopefully work for everyone.As this was at a more preliminary stage seeking feedback I figured using the forum would make more sense. If/when a formal rule for all worlds is ready I will push for the team to do a login poll either before or shortly after it is announced.
Honestly this was received a lot more negatively than I expected, and I believe @Oddersfield captured it best. Ultimately I wanted to remove as much discretion from myself as I reasonably could to avoid accusations of bias. Instead I should learn to have faith that I can earn the trust necessary to exercise some discretion without compromising my player liaison role.
Just to be clear, banning is undesirable and would only happen for continued misbehavior after trying to coach and explain and work through any language barriers. And, as always, I will not act if no one files a ticket (though when I notice battles that are <90m apart I may elect to announce in saloon "if anyone is thinking of filing a ticket , please do it soon" -- if a battle is to be moved it is always better to do it sooner rather than later, preferably within the first 6h and avoiding any changes with <6h to go)I am sorry if you feel under appreciated that certainly is not the case. I think even those of us who dont agree fully with the proposal as it is are still very grateful to you for engaging and trying to find solutions that hopefully work for everyone.
I just dont want to see people witch hunted for not obeying what some deem thier game.
I worry about the setrile enviroment that may cause where some are scared to dig for fear of others screaming multi and then banned when sometimes its just as simple as language barrier
So you actively encourage players to complain and submit tickets? Gosh, why not write a whole constitution about placing a dig? If you want to have a defined time between the battles, then make it part of the game code, don't come up with pages of rules and make arbitrary decisions which would expose you to the accusations of bias.Just to be clear, banning is undesirable and would only happen for continued misbehavior after trying to coach and explain and work through any language barriers. And, as always, I will not act if no one files a ticket (though when I notice battles that are <90m apart I may elect to announce in saloon "if anyone is thinking of filing a ticket , please do it soon" -- if a battle is to be moved it is always better to do it sooner rather than later, preferably within the first 6h and avoiding any changes with <6h to go)
Also, awesomia digs will generally not be actionable except where they interfere with Henry's announced plans or add to a board that already has 4 battles
I won't fault someone for (occasionally) trying and failing; a one person town with no friends is welcome to dig every now and then so long as they aren't intentionally disruptive. If it is to be more frequent than once per week I will require they make an honest effort -- no one will be punished for a weekly, or even semi-weekly, stand-alone dig* where they rank, set a constructive topic, show up online themselves (or have arranged for someone to be there online to lead) and can show some effort to recruit and an attempt or at least availability to lead.
However, someone digging a "pointless"** dig every day or every other day and making no discernible effort to recruit more effectively, try new tactics, or otherwise improve their chances, will be required to reduce it to at most 2x per week, or even less frequently if there are multiple such players engaged in that behavior simultaneously.
* >3h from any others, not in conflict with an established schedule, and not dug while 3 other digs were already on the board
** if the player can elucidate a legitimate purpose for their behavior I will attempt to come to an arrangement that satisfies both the digger and those who are complaining about the pattern of digs
As I've said repeatedly, I work within what is possible within the local community (.net), and this market is unique with it's broad time-zone exposure -- a game mechanic that might make sense in one market might be very unwelcome in other markets (some of which have adopted local rules that entirely forbid strategic multis)So you actively encourage players to complain and submit tickets? Gosh, why not write a whole constitution about placing a dig? If you want to have a defined time between the battles, then make it part of the game code, don't come up with pages of rules and make arbitrary decisions which would expose you to the accusations of bias.
GooberAs I've said repeatedly, I work within what is possible within the local community (.net), and this market is unique with it's broad time-zone exposure -- a game mechanic that might make sense in one market might be very unwelcome in other markets (some of which have adopted local rules that entirely forbid strategic multis)
I think there may be confusion about "local community" -- I am using it as a synonym for "market" such as ".net", ".de", ".hu", etc.Goober
I am sorry but you have done nothing to allay my concerns, while you make comment that you may write in saloon quick write ticket to complain that feels very bias to me ..
Further question who decides in local community who runs that world .. I am totally against a handful of players dictaing how people can play sorry i will never get on board with that I have been witness to several worlds being killed this way. Look at Galv and Houston where ALL Forts are owned by same handful of people that have dictated terms for those worlds to the detriment of the other side