delldell56
Well-Known Member
Well, this thread has so many wrong ideas in merely 4 pages, it's actually made me register so I could reply and say NO!
While it's true that small towns/alliances are in a clear disadvantage, you are conveniently ignoring a few details here. Owning forts (and keeping them) isn't just a matter of ownership alone. You must be able to build them and defend them, and it isn't as easy as it sounds. Particularly the building them part. Trust me, I know from experience. I can also tell you that a lot of players like to enjoy the benefits of sleeping in forts, but couldn't be bothered to go defend them.
It would be ideal that every single player could have access to forts without being forced to have ties with big alliances; however, imagine an alliance of 90 players owning a big fort. Would they be able to make every player pitch in to build the fort? Be realistic, getting all those awful fort resources is a job in itself, takes time and lots of patience. Would every single player come to its defense when the fort is under attack? Let's not forget that a big fort needs 120 defenders, so your alliance would be 30 defenders short from the very beginning, even if all 90 sign in and are online, which is not going to happen. Can a town of 10 own a fort without having friends in big alliances? How does said town plan to defend it? Also, most players in big alliances invest heavily to become fort fighters, while smaller alliances have only casual fighters that aren't willing to spend in game money or real life money to become good, nor are they willing to attend most battles. You, for instance, are a level 74 worker still with a Precise Pepper Gun and 1640 HP. This alone tells us that you don't spend money in the best available fort gun for your level, likely not in the best fort gear, and certainly not in tanking up. But, you want to own forts that will be defended by your rusty gun players.
You said "I am not against good alliances, just ones that are bigger than they need to be." How big can an alliance be, in your opinion? Who gets to decide how big it needs to be? I bet if you could make your own medium alliance grow and own forts, you'd tell your members "sky is the limit". I admit I'm part of a mega-alliance and we have our issues, but it's also a lot of fun. And no, we do not own all the forts in our side but we do work with some smaller alliances to help them with their attacks and defenses; in return, they help us with ours. That teeny tiny reciprocity detail is what your medium alliance is missing. You want to make it all about David vs. Goliath, when truth is that we don't give ranks or don't help some players from other alliances just because they are unable to pick a side, and are constantly attacking us and using a multi tactics.
Now, because this reply is long enough and I could still go on forever, let me address your idea of a cap in fort owning. Do you realize that one of the factors that make a town go higher or lower in the ranking is the fort points they have? What you're suggesting is that once a town reaches the fort cap, they would have to find another way to keep climbing up (but they could easily drop down if they'd lose one single fort). This sounds like an idea that was suggested by one member of my alliance, that towns with negative morticians should have a penalty of some sort and towns with positive morticians should get a reward ranking-wise. Of course, this member belongs to a town that owns no forts but a good mortician, while the two bigger towns in the alliance happen to have negative morticians (but provide most of the forts they sleep in). This is like telling The Bloody Path they can't be #1 town on W 12 because they don't own forts, and dueling stats alone are not good enough. Or putting a cap on the number of players they can duel on a daily basis, to keep it "fair" for towns that don't have lots of duelers. It does not sound realistic, does it?
While it's true that small towns/alliances are in a clear disadvantage, you are conveniently ignoring a few details here. Owning forts (and keeping them) isn't just a matter of ownership alone. You must be able to build them and defend them, and it isn't as easy as it sounds. Particularly the building them part. Trust me, I know from experience. I can also tell you that a lot of players like to enjoy the benefits of sleeping in forts, but couldn't be bothered to go defend them.
It would be ideal that every single player could have access to forts without being forced to have ties with big alliances; however, imagine an alliance of 90 players owning a big fort. Would they be able to make every player pitch in to build the fort? Be realistic, getting all those awful fort resources is a job in itself, takes time and lots of patience. Would every single player come to its defense when the fort is under attack? Let's not forget that a big fort needs 120 defenders, so your alliance would be 30 defenders short from the very beginning, even if all 90 sign in and are online, which is not going to happen. Can a town of 10 own a fort without having friends in big alliances? How does said town plan to defend it? Also, most players in big alliances invest heavily to become fort fighters, while smaller alliances have only casual fighters that aren't willing to spend in game money or real life money to become good, nor are they willing to attend most battles. You, for instance, are a level 74 worker still with a Precise Pepper Gun and 1640 HP. This alone tells us that you don't spend money in the best available fort gun for your level, likely not in the best fort gear, and certainly not in tanking up. But, you want to own forts that will be defended by your rusty gun players.
You said "I am not against good alliances, just ones that are bigger than they need to be." How big can an alliance be, in your opinion? Who gets to decide how big it needs to be? I bet if you could make your own medium alliance grow and own forts, you'd tell your members "sky is the limit". I admit I'm part of a mega-alliance and we have our issues, but it's also a lot of fun. And no, we do not own all the forts in our side but we do work with some smaller alliances to help them with their attacks and defenses; in return, they help us with ours. That teeny tiny reciprocity detail is what your medium alliance is missing. You want to make it all about David vs. Goliath, when truth is that we don't give ranks or don't help some players from other alliances just because they are unable to pick a side, and are constantly attacking us and using a multi tactics.
Now, because this reply is long enough and I could still go on forever, let me address your idea of a cap in fort owning. Do you realize that one of the factors that make a town go higher or lower in the ranking is the fort points they have? What you're suggesting is that once a town reaches the fort cap, they would have to find another way to keep climbing up (but they could easily drop down if they'd lose one single fort). This sounds like an idea that was suggested by one member of my alliance, that towns with negative morticians should have a penalty of some sort and towns with positive morticians should get a reward ranking-wise. Of course, this member belongs to a town that owns no forts but a good mortician, while the two bigger towns in the alliance happen to have negative morticians (but provide most of the forts they sleep in). This is like telling The Bloody Path they can't be #1 town on W 12 because they don't own forts, and dueling stats alone are not good enough. Or putting a cap on the number of players they can duel on a daily basis, to keep it "fair" for towns that don't have lots of duelers. It does not sound realistic, does it?
