DeletedUser
Not a very well thought our idea, too many problems to go into in the time I have.
- Status
DeletedUser34767
The pop up would be nice.
DeletedUser34781
great how ppl like you who love multis dont suggest alternatives
DeletedUser
He just said you left too many blind corners, no need to lash out on him. and from my point of view if your suggestion is alternative to multies i'd rather stick to multis.
DeletedUser34781
so making it more expensive to dig a fight is a hard thing to grasp.. make it more costly for you and other fans of it.
zd you can close the vote early lol. im guessing this was advertised in a certain worlds chat/forum like so many ideas do
zd you can close the vote early lol. im guessing this was advertised in a certain worlds chat/forum like so many ideas do
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted User - 1693871
I've not seen this topic mentioned or discussed anywhere other than here, and I voted no despite being a fort fighter. The proposal was too vague and for me covered too many things that would create a system open to abuse.
You comment above 'making it more expensive to dig a fight is a hard thing to grasp'. Actually increasing the cost of digging is probably the only bit of the proposal I did like, but not the way it was incorporated in the rest of the proposal.
You comment above 'making it more expensive to dig a fight is a hard thing to grasp'. Actually increasing the cost of digging is probably the only bit of the proposal I did like, but not the way it was incorporated in the rest of the proposal.
DeletedUser16008
Diss you know the cost increase was implemented already before right ? it goes up already by doubling per call in a time frame.
Its not been one of the most popular votes, maybe you should consider its possible this idea is based on being frustrated in one particular world rather than a good idea for the whole server.
Just saying bud.
DeletedUser34781
it has to be sure.. i know it was a lost cause when alliance in w12 spam voted hence why you see few new 1st time posters on it from said alliance, like so many ideas they get rail roaded.i could of done that advertising it but its not that big of an idea ... im not saying it was a great idea ..far from it. lesson learned... DO NOT POST ideas 
ppl vote against person posting them ahead of idea.
ppl vote against person posting them ahead of idea.
Last edited by a moderator:
delldell56
Well-Known Member
i am still staying out of this, but somehow i feel like i need to defend dissembler's intentions. everybody is looking at his idea as something related to one world only, and to his obvious frustrations regarding said world exclusively. while i don't think regulations would (or should be used to) fix anything in this particular matter, anywhere, i shall remind most people that it's not just a small problem happening on w12. it happened on w6 a couple of years ago, when w6 was a respectable fort fighting world and ultimately killed that world. it could happen anywhere (for some reasons, i am thinking briscoe looks like next. search a bit, and you'll find out why the feeling). did i mention both times, on w6 and w12, the multi diggers were the same core people? then again, you can always find a worm in any healthy apple but you don't go and ban apples from your life.
DeletedUser33353
Hola dell. Not sure of the other worlds, but multi's have always been a valid strategy for alliances to use. Sure, most peeps frown on them but it is a valid thing to use.
delldell56
Well-Known Member
not saying it isn't a valid strategy, kalip, because devs made them an option for a reason. vic likes them, and i remember good fort fighters like mattaus and cro sharpshooter used them as well on w10. helen hates them, but she will use them when she needs to make a point; i used them twice to send a message (and felt like a loser for doing that, but the message was delivered and understood). shaelee would multi once in a while, not for the sake of scoring an easy fort, but rather to shake things up and keep people awake; make people try something different sometimes when the same battle plans are used over and over.
my problem with multis (which, again, i don't think can't be fought via more rules because someone will find a way to break them, abuse them or make a bad use of them) is when they are used as the ONLY strategy, day in and day out. a lot of posts from frustrated players here state that they think a multi every now and then could be even a funny thing, which is the essence of what shaelee tries to achieve.
my bigger problem is when this tactics is used as an excuse, an attempt for some to lower the bar so those using it won't have to raise the bar themselves. you wouldn't reskill out of your dueling build when you are a dueler, only because others duelers complain that it's unfair that they can never win against you, would you? you'd tell them to grow a pair and get a build that could beat yours, especially if those duelers have been trying to kill you with the rusty colt they get from a quest, and don't bother to get a real weapon. it's more or less the same thing here.
my problem with multis (which, again, i don't think can't be fought via more rules because someone will find a way to break them, abuse them or make a bad use of them) is when they are used as the ONLY strategy, day in and day out. a lot of posts from frustrated players here state that they think a multi every now and then could be even a funny thing, which is the essence of what shaelee tries to achieve.
my bigger problem is when this tactics is used as an excuse, an attempt for some to lower the bar so those using it won't have to raise the bar themselves. you wouldn't reskill out of your dueling build when you are a dueler, only because others duelers complain that it's unfair that they can never win against you, would you? you'd tell them to grow a pair and get a build that could beat yours, especially if those duelers have been trying to kill you with the rusty colt they get from a quest, and don't bother to get a real weapon. it's more or less the same thing here.
HelenBack
Well-Known Member
Guilty as charged... :laugh:
I'm not gonna repeat what I already said here...
Diss, I like the idea of enforcing a time buffer for fort battles. Yes, the cost does go up if the extra forts are called close together, but who doesn't have a few $100k in their town bank just sitting there...? Really money isn't a big issue for most towns.
The main issue behind the multis are the ones who use them constantly because they can't win any other way... *cough WFA cough*.
If it wasn't for people like that, then there would be no need to enforce a time buffer. But, unfortunately, these types do exist and it isn't just on one world. Each world has had their share of multi issues... Just some have been more constant than others... Like w6 then w12. I think a better idea than just a straight 6-8 hour buffer would be to stagger it.
- Alliance 1 attacks Fort A
- Alliance 1 can not attack any forts for 8 hours.
- Any other towns can not attack any forts for 6 hours
- 6-8 hours later, Alliance 2 attacks Fort B
- Alliance 2 can not attack any forts for 8 hours.
- Any other towns (including Alliance 1) can not attack any forts for 6 hours.
- 6-8 hours later, Alliance 1 attacks Fort C.
This keeps Alliance 1 from doing any multis... and gives other alliances a chance to attack in that 2 hour window before Alliance 1 can attack again. This would give all towns a chance to get a dig in. Could change that 6 hours to 8... and the Alliance time out to 10... or whatever. Just a thought in process... the numbers would need to be tweaked. Each world can still make their own "Gentleman's Agreement" not to attack for 8 hours... That works quite well on a few worlds.
The main thing is to keep the battles full(ish) and fun... Not half a dozen dull 42 defenders vs 2 attackers and 10 defenders vs 50 attackers battles. Those aren't any fun.... they are just a poor sport's lame way of winning an easy fort.
DeletedUser34781
nothing worse than logging in before a fight to see awful number spread out over the map.. ruins the fight nights fight you logged into have fun with.we had 9 fights on fort screen not so long ago.wheres the fun in that. ah well i not gonna get too involved into a multi debate. folks know my stance by now
yeah i like helens input..i was lazy in making the proposal it was what it was..if it passed devs would have swapped and chnged any idea to suit their own ideas anyways.. but at least it gets people thinking..you are either for them(insert insult here) or against them(no insult needed)
yeah i like helens input..i was lazy in making the proposal it was what it was..if it passed devs would have swapped and chnged any idea to suit their own ideas anyways.. but at least it gets people thinking..you are either for them(insert insult here) or against them(no insult needed
)DeletedUser16008
hehe given the choice I most definitely are for them, its backed by a simple reason. Multiple location attacks and decoys are one of the oldest and most effective tactics there is.
From the very first hunters time right up to modern day its a tactic used.... the reason people dont like it is simply because it can be so devastatingly effective. All reasoning against is about as logical as being able to duel a builder or ff... its right to say its unbalanced and unfair but since when has fair got anything to do with the west or war ?
Sure this is a game so its not real world but it is a combat game. You are treating forts like a fort maneuver and pistols at dawn.
I get it but I treat the game a little more like COD ie a war is a war, not an appointment . I can't blame people for wanting it all neat n wrapped in cotton wool but it sure does take the wild out of the west every new rule that is imposed.
In fact I dont remember the last restricting rule I was for you people who are asking to have a nerfed battle system are using the same ideal about 0 motivation or dueling builders or FF.
Your killing the game with your restrictive attitude just to gratify your personal gaming pleasure.
Face it, there are hardly any players in worlds anymore compared to the golden age of this game, yet people take this as a sign to make things less variable and controlled.
This isnt logical, it is civilised maybe but certainly isnt considering the game why persue civilised controls and rules ?
reminder this is The West......... you really think there is a need to civilise it ? Im sorry people but what you are doing is in effect attempting to turn the thing into the United States of America with a constitution.
Kinda ironic really huh ?
From the very first hunters time right up to modern day its a tactic used.... the reason people dont like it is simply because it can be so devastatingly effective. All reasoning against is about as logical as being able to duel a builder or ff... its right to say its unbalanced and unfair but since when has fair got anything to do with the west or war ?
Sure this is a game so its not real world but it is a combat game. You are treating forts like a fort maneuver and pistols at dawn.
I get it but I treat the game a little more like COD ie a war is a war, not an appointment . I can't blame people for wanting it all neat n wrapped in cotton wool but it sure does take the wild out of the west every new rule that is imposed.
In fact I dont remember the last restricting rule I was for you people who are asking to have a nerfed battle system are using the same ideal about 0 motivation or dueling builders or FF.
Your killing the game with your restrictive attitude just to gratify your personal gaming pleasure.
Face it, there are hardly any players in worlds anymore compared to the golden age of this game, yet people take this as a sign to make things less variable and controlled.
This isnt logical, it is civilised maybe but certainly isnt considering the game why persue civilised controls and rules ?
reminder this is The West......... you really think there is a need to civilise it ? Im sorry people but what you are doing is in effect attempting to turn the thing into the United States of America with a constitution.
Kinda ironic really huh ?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser34781
vic i wil disgree with you forever on this.... ppl who cant win ..multi..
as for killing the game.... multis kill worlds.. not hard to see why
Your killing the game with your restrictive attitude just to gratify your personal gaming pleasure.
Kinda ironic really huh ?
as for killing the game.... multis kill worlds.. not hard to see why
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser34767
It surely upsets the routine, scheduled, farming of bonds.
I just don't think putting time limits on digging fort battles is the way to go. Especially, since multiple digs are a valid tactic. A cost increase on its own, I probably could go with.
Other things that might help, would be the previously mentioned confirmation button when the dig button is selected suggested by Cameahwait. I clicked on it once when I was new as I wanted to see how much it would cost to dig a fort, as I assumed that I would have to confirm. Fortunately, my town was too low a level, so I didn't embarrass myself by actually digging a battle.
Inno may bear some of the blame for some of the single player town digs, as they added quests that require fort battles ( I think the first is at level 25 ). While it doesn't require them to dig a battle, they may do so if frustrated by trying and not getting into full battles because of level and HP.
Also, allowing ghost towns to degrade over time while abandoned might help, as it could lower the town points of these towns and leave less towns capable of initiating a fort battle out there for low level players to take over and fire off a dig.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser16008
umm people or groups who dont have the power or resources or numbers or HP have no choice but to use other methods. Youd rather that be taken away ? its ok for the couple of big alliances but what about all the rest out there ? dont they have a right to do what they like ?
Im not really surprised
Btw I think the game was more popular before forts and also around the time they came out, multis were quite normal and also not an issue, btw w6 was never an active world for FF i know I played it I was there and whilst people would like to lay the blame on multis it was already pretty dead, same as most other older worlds prior to w9 were never great for forts the only thing that has changed is a lot of people have gone pure ff and play the game ONLY for forts. so they whine and quit if they dont get what they want when they want... yup i get it
Thats it really pretty sad
Im not really surprised
Btw I think the game was more popular before forts and also around the time they came out, multis were quite normal and also not an issue, btw w6 was never an active world for FF i know I played it I was there and whilst people would like to lay the blame on multis it was already pretty dead, same as most other older worlds prior to w9 were never great for forts the only thing that has changed is a lot of people have gone pure ff and play the game ONLY for forts. so they whine and quit if they dont get what they want when they want... yup i get it
Thats it really pretty sad
DeletedUser
I for my part will always be against multies. Whatever people say, multies to me is always a foolhardy and stabbing-in-the-back way of winning forts. They do nothing but ruin the game for passionate fighters like us, because I believe real glory is achieved with a combination of tactics and movement. Imbalanced fights are never fun, never.
DeletedUser16008
Thats just it tho, Most worlds end up with one side far more built for forts or /and hp than the other, balance isnt something people are very good at.
Passionate fighters mostly all end up on the same side its nearly always imbalanced when a side uses multis. Youd be very hard pushed to find opposing sides balanced out for very long, one side will always strive to gain an advantage over the other and usually they go way too far.
There is nothing heroic about multis this is true but then again there is nothing heroic out powering a side with numbers or hp either. Something it seems the majority, usually those in the overpowering side have no problem with whatsoever.
Passionate fighters mostly all end up on the same side its nearly always imbalanced when a side uses multis. Youd be very hard pushed to find opposing sides balanced out for very long, one side will always strive to gain an advantage over the other and usually they go way too far.
There is nothing heroic about multis this is true but then again there is nothing heroic out powering a side with numbers or hp either. Something it seems the majority, usually those in the overpowering side have no problem with whatsoever.
HelenBack
Well-Known Member
True... This is the "Wild West"... But it is still just a GAME. Not everyone can be online and ready to run to the real battle if there are multiple battles... Many people will wind up wasting a large portion of their day sitting at a fort waiting for a battle that never happened. If they go through that enough times, they won't want to stick around to keep playing a game that is no longer fun for them. I know a lot of folks who left because of multis on various worlds.
W6 did have a lot of fort battles... Mostly one alliance (WFA) throwing multis at the other alliance (UF) on a daily basis. It got old pretty quick and a lot of players left. Actually they left from both sides because some of those on the multi-attack side got bored of the multis too. There was no challenge in them... no "honour"... Ya, digital honour... but still it wasn't there. That was the only way they were able to steal all the forts... The other side just gave up because it wasn't worth their time to run around to fake battles. Whether some may consider it to be a "legit tactic" or not... It's a pathetic way to win a fort.
If we were a real army and this was our job, then I'd say hell yeah, diversions are a very good tactic... and the enemy probably has spies keeping an eye on where we are going. But we aren't talking about a real life wild west... We're talking about a game that has players from all over the world... Different time zones... Some working or going to school. The West isn't a job... it's a game... Which means that most play it in their spare time. Again, they can't always be online to jump from fort to fort when there are multis. If people don't give a rats and are only out to steal all the forts no matter what the cost, then they will lower themselves to use multis. Those who actually care about the game and the people who play it want to see full battles (or reasonably full) that rely on strategy and battle tactics which make them a real challenge.
Ya... this is coming from a zero-mot dueler/quester/fort fighter/huggler... I'm a Jill of all trades and a mistress of none.
I just want to try and keep as many players as possible actively enjoying the game.
W6 did have a lot of fort battles... Mostly one alliance (WFA) throwing multis at the other alliance (UF) on a daily basis. It got old pretty quick and a lot of players left. Actually they left from both sides because some of those on the multi-attack side got bored of the multis too. There was no challenge in them... no "honour"... Ya, digital honour... but still it wasn't there. That was the only way they were able to steal all the forts... The other side just gave up because it wasn't worth their time to run around to fake battles. Whether some may consider it to be a "legit tactic" or not... It's a pathetic way to win a fort.
If we were a real army and this was our job, then I'd say hell yeah, diversions are a very good tactic... and the enemy probably has spies keeping an eye on where we are going. But we aren't talking about a real life wild west... We're talking about a game that has players from all over the world... Different time zones... Some working or going to school. The West isn't a job... it's a game... Which means that most play it in their spare time. Again, they can't always be online to jump from fort to fort when there are multis. If people don't give a rats and are only out to steal all the forts no matter what the cost, then they will lower themselves to use multis. Those who actually care about the game and the people who play it want to see full battles (or reasonably full) that rely on strategy and battle tactics which make them a real challenge.
Ya... this is coming from a zero-mot dueler/quester/fort fighter/huggler... I'm a Jill of all trades and a mistress of none.
I just want to try and keep as many players as possible actively enjoying the game.
- Status