Limit Times Between Fort Fights

15kol

Well-Known Member
i didn't say that i am pleased with current system... but all those rules and arrangements are the reason which is killing FFing. battles used to be unpredictable and fun, now they are pretty much same. it doesnt matter which fort, which alliances- it's all the same
 

zd3no

Well-Known Member
There's nothing fun and unpredictable than a one man town attacking a fort right after a battle has been initiated.

Each world usually has 2 big alliances battling the forts game, but in most of the cases outsiders are welcomed to join as well. It's just the way of things and it will not change soon. Attacking a fort with less than 6-8h is just inconvenient and a nuisance. Not fun at all. However in most cases those 2 alliances have an understanding with multies and do not practice them. If the odd multi happens, it's all sorted out and the world goes on.

Deliberate multies are the fool's attempt to spoil everyone's fun for the sake of his/her own's malicious satisfaction. I hate deliberate multies, they accomplish nothing at all.

None of the proposed suggestions are ideal, I think that is why Inno doesn't do anything about it.
 

supraxus

What about, just on established worlds (so this wouldn;t work for new worlds), raise the cost to something incredibly high (say $500,000) per battle, and have a counter for each town, so that every town's ability to initiate another battle is increased an extra 50% more (maybe forever, maybe reduces every month).
 

15kol

Well-Known Member
What about, just on established worlds (so this wouldn;t work for new worlds), raise the cost to something incredibly high (say $500,000) per battle, and have a counter for each town, so that every town's ability to initiate another battle is increased an extra 50% more (maybe forever, maybe reduces every month).
so a normal town within top 20 would dig 1 battle per 3 years?
 

Ripwise

Well-Known Member
Or just make that price if alliance wants to call several battles. you call one per alliance, if that same alliance wants to dig another then they pay that price.
 

15kol

Well-Known Member
the problem isnt in game mechanics- these are good as they are.
problem is in mentality of players who always group into two major alliances and leave others out of game so they have to call multis..
when we fix this problem everything would go on better
 

dissembler

Well-Known Member
What about, just on established worlds (so this wouldn;t work for new worlds), raise the cost to something incredibly high (say $500,000) per battle, and have a counter for each town, so that every town's ability to initiate another battle is increased an extra 50% more (maybe forever, maybe reduces every month).
i do like idea of costing more money to dig a fight..maybe not as much as 500k. but 100k maybe for a large..give ppl a new incentive to add cash to their towns again
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
Excuse me but there dosn't seem to be any thinking outside the box here.

when for example a side calls a single small at prime time why should'nt they be able to call a second should they so wish ? especially if they have the numbers .... or why should'nt the defending side call another one ? again especially if they have large numbers.

Im not overly fond of multis myself these days but im sure not bothered by them and reserve the right to use them should I so wish. I have had major world wars with them as a very large part of a war strategy both against me and by me that have gone on for years with little damage to the activty. At one time even had all forts on a world called at once in order to rebalance things when it became owned outright by one side ( mine in fact ).

It would be nice to have prime time battles that are bigger and better sure but if for example you have a side that totally ignores this and constantly calls non prime battles or say small all the time then multis ( or a call a few hrs later say at prime time ) are one way of ensuring people who do like prime actually get a battle.

These are just a few examples of multis used that are not for the reasons or the effect some here claim

Since when does the preference of the elite FF or one group dictate how the rest choose to play forts ? or indeed the strategy they wish to apply ? sure you can agree with opposing sides a form of gentlemans agreement or you can force things to a point but you shouldnt expect to have a rule imposed by the game itself.

Similarly if you have a side with all the FF grouped together that are pretty much unbeatable multis also are a valid strategy by whats left. Only an idiot would go up against a stronger opponent on their terms, if you had any sense you would look to other options. Multis are indeed one when your outgunned and out stripped for HP, people may not like it but I doubt anyone complains when they are outgunning a side all the time its great fun shooting fish in a barrel right ? well thats war for you right ? beef up get better kit blah blah blah we hear it all the time... well thats not all forts are about or the strategies that can be applied.

Forts are in effect WAR not a boxing match run by a authorising body Spys are valid, betrayal is valid, false battles are valid, dueling battles are valid, prime times are valid, non prime are valid and multis are valid. In fact anything that can be thought up as a strategy in a war is VALID. If people have forgotten that then I say you never understood the point of forts nor the scope they allow in the first place.

It is ridiculous and shallow of people to expect to confine everyone into a box of what you want, when you want and how you want.

Just because in many worlds it has become a two horse race many of which are dominated by just one group it does not mean everyone else should be subjected to those same groups demands, this is silly and selfish to even suggest to say the least.

It may well be such a world is not much fun for many but its clearly fun for the side your complaining about calling these multis, the fact that the elite arnt having much fun does not mean it is wrong it just means imo your managing the solution badly.

It certainly dosnt mean this is a game problem nor does it need to be *regulated* and boxed to suit even a large proportion of the player base, even 51% of the people should not have the right to dictate to the other 49%. That is not freedom that is Democracy at its very worst.
 
Last edited:

Nisa

The West Team
Marshal
GM Master
Deputy Sheriff
It would be nice to have prime time battles that are bigger and better sure but if for example you have a side that totally ignores this and constantly calls non prime battles or say small all the time then multis ( or a call a few hrs later say at prime time ) are one way of ensuring people who do like prime actually get a battle.
I could agree with this but what you said later is just the opposite. What if one side is actually trying to have a bigger battle in prime time but other side is constantly ruining it and digging multies right after a ' normal big prime time dig'?




It is ridiculous and shallow of people to expect to confine everyone into a box of what you want, when you want and how you want.
Who is 'you' here.Guess not the fort fighting alliance that have a team of ffers and put a lot effort into building forts, getting product and helping ppl to become fort fighters but should be as how some random ffer ( that is not even that ) says and when he feels like having a battle.

Just because in many worlds it has become a two horse race many of which are dominated by just one group it does not mean everyone else should be subjected to those same groups demands, this is silly and selfish to even suggest to say the least.

It may well be such a world is not much fun for many but its clearly fun for the side your complaining about calling these multis, the fact that the elite arnt having much fun does not mean it is wrong it just means imo your managing the solution badly.
Whats the reason we have alliances then? Alliances are forming to grow strong and protect or win a fort for their members and fight each other. Small alliances can attack forts of course but question is how much support they will get from 'bigger alliance' and how much chance to win they will have.And before you say they are allowed to own a fort too not just big alliances i will say yes they are, but most of the times even if they own a fort they dont bother to show up and rank ppl or lead when their fort is under attack.
There are some small alliances that prefer to stay small and not join any big alliance but are active in battles and they are noticed and big alliance will support them.

Multies are killing battles and there I was thinking we are trying to improve fort battles and fill them. Multies can be fun for a day or 2 when one side is trying to achieve something but denying 'bigger fort battle at prime time' by digging multi(s) within 20 mins legit battle is dug (and for long time) is something else.

When battles die world dies too. Sure there will be duelers and questers, but even duelers wont have much fun after they lose some of their favorite (fat) targets.


There is much more money in game now so why not raise the cost of multies once again. People would still be allowed to dig multies but at least wouldnt do it almost everyday for long time ...


one more thing..why some ppl that posted here have no problem to be a part of 'elite and dominating' alliance on other worlds and it's perfectly fine but on w12 they support multies against 'elite' eh?
 

dissembler

Well-Known Member
i said i was done discussing it but looks like im not :)

does anyone have an issue with raising the cost..make it more expensive to dig a fight..get some use out of the town funds..if funds are low players will appreciate a fight alot more as they would have to donate money..

i see that timing fight bans etc isnt looking like it got much support so rise in price would be ideal and compromise.
 

zd3no

Well-Known Member
thank you victor, you just repeated my posts that were deleted in this thread by the elite ffers who want to control & dominate a server, like GC super alliance in w12. multis were the only option left for the w12 leftovers since GC refused to disband & balance.
I have deleted your posts and will delete this one as well tomorrow. So no elite fort fighters deleted your posts. The reason why I deleted them was to clean the thread. I'm finding it hard to believe that you (not just you, others too) cannot discuss multies without pointing to W12... not everybody is playing w12, so if you want to discuss multies, do it in general.

@Victor, I disagree with you. I think the sole purpose of an alliance these days is to remote sign in to a battle and to get preference over outsiders when ranking is done. However at a battle everybody can participate and in many cases outsiders get ranked if they have the mojo and are online. You're objectifying multies as being part of war, but I don't see it that way at all. I tell you that if an outsider would contact the alliance I am in and told us that they want to attack a fort and need our help, I am sure we would let them attack (whether we would help or not is another story altogether) . In fact we respect the odd diggs. If and when you will not need to be in an alliance to remotely sign in to a battle, I am sure that it would not make much difference who digs the battle and people will participate. That's fair, you don't need to ruin everyone's fun because you have your personal War ... you can't spit against the wind, the sooner you accept it the better. Alliances have the advantage over outsiders, that's true, but what do you accomplish with multi battles? Even if you take a fort from the big alliance, they'll crush you like a bug when they'll attack it back. And what do you have to show for it? You proved that you are a "jerk" and besides that you lost the fort as well.

All in all, multies are a fool's tool to make himself a bigger fool. Do we need to moderate or restrict them? I don't think so. There will always be multi diggers and if Inno wants to increase the prices for digging forts or puting any sort of restrictions, that will just limit some worlds as battles and politics are quite different from world to world. With that I agree with Vic, but not the way he justifies it.
 

15kol

Well-Known Member
well raising cost could be a solution (like when leaving a town is 2hours, then 4, 6, and so on)
first dig is like 10k, next within 48hours is 20k,...
 

delldell56

Well-Known Member
15kol...there was a time when all battles costed the same (according to fort size, of course) regardless of how many digs happened at once. you could dig one or you could dig all forts, the cost was the same. increasing the cost if the next dig happened before 6 hours in between was already an improvement addressing the multi tactics, but since all worlds are rather old now and there is so much cash in game, most towns are pretty rich and multis don't really make a big dent on any treasury.
 

supraxus

Hence why I say, make it prohibitive but not impossible. Pick a big number, make it stick to that alliance (or town, my own preference) with a long cooldown, and you've...made the problem slower to happen, so to speak. Think of it like your skills and the shaman, but w/o the nugget reset option. You just have to wait for it to be cheap again.
 

Elmyr

I kind of like sup's idea, but let the entire alliance pay for it. I'm thinking of something like the fair, but without having to travel to make deposits.