Rejected Multies

[DeletedUser34784]

And in a game and real life here's what i'll say: TOO BAD!

 

[DeletedUser]

You gotta keep the tweaking simple, else you risk breaking a delicate balance (some would say it's already broken).

You have two dominating alliances? Why is that Inno's problem to fix? Go and start a 3rd 'I hate the other two alliances' alliance, go fill them with active players, and go and take the forts from the other 2 dominant teams. Figure out how to drum up support, not get the gods to modify the rules (that's like saying you don't like falling down and hurting yourself, so please can the Universe change gravity so it doesn't work so strongly...)

 

[DeletedUser11353]

You have two dominating alliances? Why is that Inno's problem to fix? Go and start a 3rd 'I hate the other two alliances' alliance, go fill them with active players, and go and take the forts from the other 2 dominant teams.

That's like you have Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Ibrahimović in same team and then try to find a defense that can hold them back. It can't be done unless you hurt them. Same goes for this, full premium hardcores will have lvl/gear advantage and there's nothing those small alliances can do about it. How will they attract new players? They won't. Conclusion is multies MUST STAY. Personally I hate them and used them a couple of times only since forts were first introduced, and then only to multi back when my alliance forts were in risk of getting taken away by the tactic.

Servers don't have that much players, not to mention they lack of premium hardcore players as those will be in one of those 2 top alliances in 95% so I don't know maybe you should go on Colorado where we have Holes and TCB with bunch of small alliances and try to win a battle against them. It can't be done.

Also most of big alliances have their multi deals which they respect and if someone tries to steal a fort from them with a multi or two the other side will either help to defend multi, ignore it or help to win back the fort if small alliance won it somehow.

 

[Nisa]

Most of the posters here agree that multis are to stay, but this proposal came up as a result of long term multies when one group is abusing that option.

Many of us play multiple worlds and see one side getting too strong, it happens on most worlds yet how many ' weaker' sides pick digging multies as an option to 'fix' it? Or they try other ways to make battles enjoyable and fun again? Non stop winning is as bad as non stop losing.

So there is a question, what would you all do if one group says ' we wont change anything, we will bore you to death until you all quit'. How many of you would find multies fun after a week, how many after 3 months, how many after year and a half?

 

[DeletedUser34767]

Most of the posters here agree that multis are to stay, but this proposal came up as a result of long term multies when one group is abusing that option.

Many of us play multiple worlds and see one side getting too strong, it happens on most worlds yet how many ' weaker' sides pick digging multies as an option to 'fix' it? Or they try other ways to make battles enjoyable and fun again? Non stop winning is as bad as non stop losing.

So there is a question, what would you all do if one group says ' we wont change anything, we will bore you to death until you all quit'. How many of you would find multies fun after a week, how many after 3 months, how many after year and a half?

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the 6-8 hour time limit between fort fights will also have a damaging effect on fort fighting. For example, I'll use the world I play on, Colorado.

Colorado generally has two daily fort fights between the big alliances ( TCB and Holes ) at what would be considered the "prime time" as mentioned in other posts. It also has smaller fort battles between teams of smaller alliances once or twice a week. These smaller fort battles allow between 70-92 players, most of who would never get into a big alliance fort battle due to level and/or HP, to enjoy and gain some experience in fort fighting. These small fights generally occur near "prime time" as well as they also are trying to maximize on-line participation.

I see the 6-8 hour time limit hurting participation on days when there are 3+ fort battles by pushing one or more to less convenient times ( less on-line participation ).

I guess the point I'm trying to make is not every world is only two alliances fighting it out over every fort to the exclusion of everyone else and the time limit idea seems like it would encourage the two alliance model.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Honestly Nisa ? get everyone to ignore them totally... just take them back whenever you wish.

Just focus on the battles you wish to do with your main opponents and totally ignore all others.

I know its not easy and reasons to defend hard work building n all that but if the place is really that bad ? may as well just focus on a fort battle you want to do and ignore the rest of the noise going on ....least you could get on with your good battles that way

 

[Nisa]

I see it as only option too Vic. Already tried last year in december but it was hard to keep up with it cause of the reasons you said, when you have a legit battle and than 3 multies on large(home) forts, ppl just run to defend.So it failed.

After that we tried to drop all forts but keep a few and have battles there, also didnt work.

Now we are trying with ignoring part again heh and hope to have more luck this time.

@Caleb

I play Colo too so I know the situation there. I am also a part of small alliance, not signed up for multi agreement made by 2 big alliances but we respect it.Thats why i think raising up the price of multies would be a good idea actually. Small alliances that dig once or twice per week could manage it, but it would help in cases when someone wants to dig loads of multies almost on daily bases..

 

[DeletedUser34546]

I would agree with the price thing. For every dig within 24 hours by the same town, make the cost of the dig double, or something like that. It would still happen, but at least the town cash would be burnt out faster.

 

[HelenBack]

Most of the posters here agree that multis are to stay, but this proposal came up as a result of long term multies when one group is abusing that option.

Many of us play multiple worlds and see one side getting too strong, it happens on most worlds yet how many ' weaker' sides pick digging multies as an option to 'fix' it? Or they try other ways to make battles enjoyable and fun again? Non stop winning is as bad as non stop losing.

So there is a question, what would you all do if one group says ' we wont change anything, we will bore you to death until you all quit'. How many of you would find multies fun after a week, how many after 3 months, how many after year and a half?

Totally agree... This is because of one group abusing the multi battles by having them daily. And many people just say "to hell with forts and/or the West" and go do something else. Has happened before and will happen again. That's the only reason I'm against multis... They do kill the spirit of the people in that world.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the 6-8 hour time limit between fort fights will also have a damaging effect on fort fighting. ...

I see the 6-8 hour time limit hurting participation on days when there are 3+ fort battles by pushing one or more to less convenient times ( less on-line participation ).

Good point... I threw in the 6-8 hour time limit as an example... It could be 4 hours for any other alliance to attack, but keep it at 8 hours before the first alliance can attack again. Or even 2 hours for any other alliance... and 6 hours for the first alliance. The numbers can be tweaked. The point is to keep one alliance from digging a dozen forts within a couple hours.

just focus on a fort battle you want to do and ignore the rest of the noise going on ....least you could get on with your good battles that way

I see it as only option too Vic. Already tried last year in december but it was hard to keep up with it cause of the reasons you said, when you have a legit battle and than 3 multies on large(home) forts, ppl just run to defend.So it failed.

Ya, as Nisa says... People will go to defend their own forts no matter what their "orders" are. You should remember that from w10 Vic. When GC countered our attack and the majority went to the defense instead of the attack... If we had a full attack, there wouldn't have been any defense needed... But people will want to save their own stuff.

I would agree with the price thing. For every dig within 24 hours by the same town, make the cost of the dig double, or something like that. It would still happen, but at least the town cash would be burnt out faster.

Could do that too... I would say double the cost (or triple or whatever) but for the whole alliance. If the alliance likes to multi, then they usually have people from multiple towns to run around and call them.


I like AZ for fort battles because the majority there want good battles... When one side gets too strong, things shift and it rebalances... Well sometimes anyways. lol Other times it takes a while before things shift. But I think, in general, the peeps there are willing to work towards having good, fun battles.

At least there is a good discussion going on about this issue and who knows... Maybe something good will come out of it. Thanks for starting it Diss!

 

[DeletedUser]

I like AZ for fort battles because the majority there want good battles... When one side gets too strong, things shift and it rebalances... Well sometimes anyways. lol Other times it takes a while before things shift. But I think, in general, the peeps there are willing to work towards having good, fun battles.

Mostly same has been the case with Colorado, with most of the times alliances restructuring when the power wheel turned a bit too much towards one side. I love Colorado because of this and glad that the multies haven't ruined the world yet and its still regarded as one of the best worlds for fort fighting. There are smaller alliances which fight against each other and in those battles players of every level and hp get in so both sides are happy.

 

[DeletedUser]

great how ppl like you who love multis dont suggest alternatives

I don't always have time to go into details as I'm a very busy person, and your plan would take some time, though not much thought to destroy.

First multies are rarely a first choice tactic, they are used when an alliance is consistently beaten in ff due to one side have a huge HP and or numbers (of fort fighters) advantage. You seem to argue that it is down to the weaker alliance to get stronger, that's a good idea, why did no one else think of that when one side already has most of the dedicated ff, to improve takes time and multies are the only way left to keep fort fighting with even a chance of winning, they enable the weaker alliance to keep the ff they have left interested and are training grounds for less experienced ff. Multies are not the disease they are a symptom of the disease, the disease being totally unbalanced alliances.

If one side sets out to be the best ff alliance (nothing wrong with that) if they truly what good fort fights they should stop recruiting when they become the best not continuing to recruit for ever trying to destroy an alliance because the leader won't do as you tell him, won't have just one ff a day at a time specified by you, only use the tactics you approve of.

I don't enjoy going to ff attacking a full fort of elite fort fighters with only 35 of our own ff with me, but I giggle like a little girl when I see 49 of you attack a fort defended by 2, like I said it is not my preferred tactic but without multies there would be no point and no fun involved with fort fighting at all for us.

As for what we could do, well remote sign in for everyone, this would make it easier for other small alliances and small towns to join in a ff, the strong alliances would not have room for extras and so the weaker alliances would benefit most from this and it may increase the interest overall in ff. Here's one you will like..... cap HP, not for individuals but come up with a formula so in any defense or attack the stronger side should only be able to have an HP advantage of a certain level and it is reduced across the board to make the fight more even, now I don't mean totally even, if one alliance wants to commit to ff, they should be able to put out a side with an ff advantage, but just make it possible to be beaten if the tactics are not what the should be, at the moment the result is normally obvious before the first round begins even if both sides fill.

 

[delldell56]

hehe. that only served to remind me of...

- the so-called athletes that think "i'll never be good enough, but i still want some medals, so steroids sounds fine".
- the good athletes that think "i am a natural, but i hate training. dopping will take care of that".
- the tonya hardings that think "i am so good, but why take chances. let's cripple nancy kerrigan".

it's not that i like how things are and that i would not make major changes if i could. but i am not really into something like "the end justifies the means". i've said i am not really against multis per se, and i even named some who use or have used them, and why. i am only saying that if someone needs to use this tactics day in and day out, without trying something different, it can only mean that they don't deserve to win because they need to dop or tonya harding their way, instead of working hard to get better. and it gets old pretty quickly and bores the people that play this game for good fights and aren't getting any.

after migration opened, johnny45s reskilled into a super tank on w2 (there were maybe 100 active players, and less than half cared about battles) and ran multis for 2 weeks until he conquered all forts by just walking to the flag vs offliners, refill and walk to the next battle. the first couple of days, it was funny to watch (well, for those who weren't losing those forts, of course), but then we all knew the outcome and those not involved ignored them. even then, you could see he wouldn't randomly multi to see what he could score. there was a clear pattern: he calculated how long it would take him to reach the flag and keep it, even if he found online defenders blocking his way; and how much time he would need to refill his full hp while walking to the next fort, in case he needed more than one potion. now, that's using multis as tactics, and not crazy digging in hopes of getting lucky. even though vic loves to use multis because he's wicked, we all know that he actually has a lot of tricks and can win without them. he uses them because he can, not because he needs them or is too lazy to try something else. did i mention usually vic's towns are elite fort fighting or elite dueling towns?

 

[DeletedUser]

Trying to get a perfectly acceptable tactic banned to give you an even stronger advantage and restricting an advantage to make things more even, are not much different and that is my point, I guess I will have to dumb down my posts a bit.

 

[delldell56]

i never said i wanted it banned. i am, however, saying that using it everyday, all the time, it's just *yawn* and kills the interest of the people who actually want a fight where, losing or winning, their abilities and intelligence are getting tested. i guess it's a mentality thing. i love balance and equality too, but i like to raise the bar and push it as high as i can, others like it lowered to their level so they don't need to do much. again, it must be a mentality thing. tom morello jokes about me being a cross between marge and maggie simpson, a way to call me "the nerdiest poster child for every girl scout". there are more bart and homer simpsons out there, though.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but in fort fighting when one has raised the bar by recruiting more fort fighters of a high standard there is no way the other side can match them in the short term, please explain if I'm missing something. You recruit most of the people who want to ff daily and are willing to dedicate almost everything to fort fighting, the people who want to duel, trade, craft are much less likely to move to the strong fort fighting alliance so the we are left with people often active players but are not into fort fighting everyday and will not raise their ff skills at the expense of their other activities, and some fort fighters who are perhaps a little more mature who like to be the underdog and play the game rather than the child mentality of always having to win. How do we get stronger in the short term, there will be opportunities to recruit towns from the ff alliance at some time because of the childish ego's among some of the leaders, but other than that it will be a long process and multies are the only way we can maintain interest for our dedicated fort fighters.
Just remember when you got so strong that you cannot be beaten in single battles, when you continued to recruit fort fighting towns and fort fighters, you were bringing onto your selves what has happened now, poor insight ? poor planning? poor leadership? maybe all of these, but you brought it on your selves and stop whinging about it now because we did not roll over and do as you wanted us to do.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you are a group of passionate fighters, then the obvious solution would be to have a talk with the opposing alliance hats regarding the matter of imbalance. Then temporary shifting of teams or players would ensure that you have the balance back. But if your aim is to win over the other alliance by conquest then you should analyse the situation and think of ways to improve it. The other players chose the other alliance for a reason, and you should think how to get them to join yours. Believe me, cheap wins are fun only for a limited amount of time. Soon you'll see the winning alliance complaining more about the situation, and then there would be a reshuffling of things. Its the normal cycle of alliances in a world.

 

[DeletedUser34781]

yawn... soggy. testing a new tactic at the moment which seems to eliminate multi alliances fort battles.. totally ignore them... let them have the fort.. mail people who are at the multi fort to move. 0 fun for the multi alliances which is great to see.40-50 attackers with 2-3 defenders hilarious to see and i hope they all used buffs to waste. its not easy to do but ignoring them completely is only way to try have a decent fight.

Not easy to keep it up but hey seeing as this isnt a much loved idea we gotta try new things. like making the multi alliances seem like kids who are not good at sports let them sit it out and kick a ball against a wall..see how much fun that is before multi alliance members get annoyed that are getting no bonds,exp fun

 

[Nisa]

How do we get stronger in the short term, there will be opportunities to recruit towns from the ff alliance at some time because of the childish ego's among some of the leaders, but other than that it will be a long process and multies are the only way we can maintain interest for our dedicated fort fighters.
Just remember when you got so strong that you cannot be beaten in single battles, when you continued to recruit fort fighting towns and fort fighters, you were bringing onto your selves what has happened now, poor insight ? poor planning? poor leadership? maybe all of these, but you brought it on your selves and stop whinging about it now because we did not roll over and do as you wanted us to do.

soggy, your argument about numbers is not valid. Your alliance had 800 + players at some point, even now that some towns left you, you still have more people. You are just under 500 atm while 'elite' has 300+ and yes they also have crafters, questers duelers , low lvl players etc.
And about HP? Help me to understand please.Your alliance leader is a 10k hp tank on Colo and belongs to 'weaker' side.Some of your alliance memebers (and multi diggers on w12) are part of 'elite' alliance there and have high HP and pretty OK with being there.

http://tw-db.info/?strana=politic_map&world=en15 ( there is a link so we are clear on what we are talking about )
So please why double standards, if someone prefers to not be a tank but play with low hp i can understand it, thats their way of playing, but its not the case.

So am I wrong when i think it's about your alliance policy to just cause a mess on world without even trying to change anything? (aka not dig at all but counter within a 20 mins when battle is on board or just dig a bunch of multies). When someone keeps repeating something enough times it becomes true eh? And before you answer, what i said above about ' your alliance wont change anything but will make us all quit and bored' is what your alliance leader told me personally and I still dont have a reason to think he didnt mean it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Introvert, the idea is fine but in this case the "other" alliance wants to dominate the world, set the times, rules to suit themselves, they want good fights as long as they can always maintain an advantage. We worked for months building the alliance to a stage where it could challenge, stopped the mulites and one week later the alliance split, a coincidence? I know it was not.
I just cannot understand how the people cannot differentiate between alliance members and alliance fort fighters, only so many ff to go around and too many have been badly led, to the same alliance, the evidence of this is clear, not enough good fort fights!!!! and it's not difficult to see why some want to play differently in different worlds, if you play the same in several worlds you are probably wasting your life.

This is becoming tiresome now, talking to some of the GCff leadership is like talking to 3 year olds who just say I want, I want I want and stamp their feet and throw their teddy in the corner when they don't get their own way, and stick their fingers in their ears and say la,la,la,la when things they don't like are explained to them so they can continue to live in their own world instead of growing up and facing reality.

Weekend over now back to work so no more time to waste here. (until next weekend)

 

[DeletedUser19518]

If you are a group of passionate fighters, then the obvious solution would be to have a talk with the opposing alliance hats regarding the matter of imbalance. Then temporary shifting of teams or players would ensure that you have the balance back. But if your aim is to win over the other alliance by conquest then you should analyse the situation and think of ways to improve it. The other players chose the other alliance for a reason, and you should think how to get them to join yours. Believe me, cheap wins are fun only for a limited amount of time. Soon you'll see the winning alliance complaining more about the situation, and then there would be a reshuffling of things. Its the normal cycle of alliances in a world.

Agree 100%. Good thoughts mate!