Need to make holding forts costly

[Mrs Sam COlt]

In many worlds, Las Vegas for instance, one alliance has dominated and holds all 42 forts. Fort battles only occur now when that alliance (Sorority) leaves a fort they own and share with a different alliance/non-alliance town. That fort then gets attacked by Sorority.

If forts required a daily charge to the fort resources in order to maintain the current levels of the towers/walls/buildings, of say 1000 dollars, it would not be beneficial for a town or alliance to control many forts. The daily charge should be deducted from the resource bank in each fort, and if 0, the fort would begin to deteriorate randomly: a tower/wall/ or building would drop one level. It would be the responsibility of member forts to keep the resource bank funded. The resource bank max is $17500, requiring a deposit at least every two weeks. The rate could change depending upon the size or number fo forts owned by an alliance.

 

[Goober Pyle]

I personally love this idea, and will promote it to the dev team, but I would consider it highly unlikely for it to be taken up (all similar concepts previously promoted haven't been).

Within the existing rules, the best option for the scenario you face is the permitted "strategic multi":
Dig two battles as close in time as possible and send your attackers to one not the other (ideally have some camp out at the non-target and travel last minute so it's not obvious which target is real)
Provided 10 attackers participate in one of the battles, should the attack fail you would be permitted to attack 3 forts simultaneously on the next attempt, 4 on the attempt after that and 5 on attempts after that until you do prevail.

 

[Mrs Sam COlt]

Come on Goober... I dug 4 battles for last Saturday and 5 for Sunday, all exactly 3 hrs apart... but you cancelled the Sunday battles.

BTW, there are no rules posted in the WIki or the RULES for Fort battles.

As for the multi-dig strategy.... anything one alliance can do, can be done against it.

What the world needs is a cost to holding many forts.

 

[Goober Pyle]

Come on Goober... I dug 4 battles for last Saturday and 5 for Sunday, all exactly 3 hrs apart... but you cancelled the Sunday battles.

BTW, there are no rules posted in the WIki or the RULES for Fort battles.

As for the multi-dig strategy.... anything one alliance can do, can be done against it.

What the world needs is a cost to holding many forts.

It would seem you overlooked the rule:
"
Declaring excessive numbers of battles in a 24 hours period
- Generally declaring an additional battle within 6 hours of the previous battle when 4 or more battles are already scheduled;
"

Policies for Spam Fort Battles

Dear Cowboys and Cowgirls, The declaration of more Fort Battles at the same time is a recurring problem on The West and can result the interest decrease for this game feature. We have received a lot of feedback from you regarding this issue and as our goal is to ensure that our community can...

forum.the-west.net

 

[Mrs Sam COlt]

Goober... rules are rules... the forum is the forum. Posting something in the forum and calling it a rule is not correct. Rules must be in their proper place and updated regularily. Otherwise, a player would need to read the entire forum in an effort to keep up with possible changes in rules.

There is a proper place for rules, and it is not here.

 

[NovaStar]

I think it was Victor once that suggested (either he did this or suggested to do this), if all forts were owned by one alliance, then digging multi's (and I don't mean just 1 multi, but several at one time), would and should be strategically allowed in order to them up some. I don't think he even tried to plan who would go to which ones...several would definitely be lost to the "who-evers" but definitely all would not be owned at that time by one alliance. I thought at the time I read his post, and still believe it's a genious idea and should definitely be allowed for this purpose. Too many people complain about a dying world and one side/alliance dominating...this would at least break it up for a little while to bring more ff's...even for just a few months. If by some chance, even my own alliance owned all the forts, I'd be 100% for all of them being dug back to back. The ONLY reason my alliance (in one world) own so many is because the other side stopped digging (for the most part...maybe once a month?) You can't win forts unless you dig, so if we own more than half of them, it's because we dug and we don't want ff's to die completely, although it's on the way to that because we are mostly the only ones digging yet we even slowed down on digging because we are getting too many forts. We own 20 of 42, our main opponents own 12, so the rest are owned by neutrals or supporters of either side.

 

[Huscarle.]

What if, in addition to the maintenance cost, we added certain additional benefits to maintaining a fort, or at least new internal buildings like an armory or an ammunition reserve that generates certain consumable items at intervals, let's say, I don't know, every 24 hours or every 7 days? At least it would give an initiative to defend them. Historically, (I live in Argentina, in a small town founded based on a small fort and the railway station in my locality), the strategic function of forts was to defend the populations colonizing the area from attacks by 'malones.' The fort generally provided weapons and shelter to the citizens and had a garrison of personnel.

Clearly, the dynamics and function of forts, derived from battles and barracks, are somewhat ambiguous. Moreover, in the historical context in which the game unfolds, I even believe that it could be further exploited to the benefit of both players and the game, in terms of gains, of course.

 

[Syntex]

Goober... rules are rules... the forum is the forum. Posting something in the forum and calling it a rule is not correct. Rules must be in their proper place and updated regularily. Otherwise, a player would need to read the entire forum in an effort to keep up with possible changes in rules.

There is a proper place for rules, and it is not here.

These policies have been approved by InnoGames as of June 2023. A player who was not aware of these rules, and broke them will get in all cases first warned in a ticket, before receiving any punishments. We also do all efforts to advertise any changes in-game also, when applied. A player may follow the special sub-thread about Fort battles to get notified about any changes.

 

[1 Bad Wolf]

so encouraging to do multis is ok as long as it fits one side. If you don't like all forts taken then mount an attack and take some back.

There can be only one!

 

[Mrs Sam COlt]

so encouraging to do multis is ok as long as it fits one side. If you don't like all forts taken then mount an attack and take some back.

There can be only one!

1BadWolf, what you are proposing is like telling a professional football team that lost all their first and second string players to other teams, to continue to play with new players drafted from the local high schools. Fact is, in Las Vegas world, Sorority Alliance recruited away almost all of the good Fort Fighters. There are only 3 or 4 good FFers not in Soro. Despite many dug battles, winning against Soro is not possible with the rag tag fighters left in other alliances.
If INNO desires to keep players playing, and buying nuggets, they need to adjust the game to prevent or severly discourage one alliance from having all forts. That can be by limiting the number of forts that one alliance can have, one town can have, or for requiring a daily cost for maintaining a fort. Players continue to leave LV world because they are frustrated with the fort monopoly by Soro.

 

[Clever Hans]

1BadWolf, what you are proposing is like telling a professional football team that lost all their first and second string players to other teams, to continue to play with new players drafted from the local high schools. Fact is, in Las Vegas world, Sorority Alliance recruited away almost all of the good Fort Fighters. There are only 3 or 4 good FFers not in Soro. Despite many dug battles, winning against Soro is not possible with the rag tag fighters left in other alliances.
If INNO desires to keep players playing, and buying nuggets, they need to adjust the game to prevent or severly discourage one alliance from having all forts. That can be by limiting the number of forts that one alliance can have, one town can have, or for requiring a daily cost for maintaining a fort. Players continue to leave LV world because they are frustrated with the fort monopoly by Soro.

Sorority played as underdogs for most of Vegas history which is easy to check from battle stats (win/loss ratios are equal in the best case). Also, it is not our problem that you sabotaged merging of the alliances on other side by insisting to run your own small alliance. You make it sound like we have some numbers advantage when in fact, the number of players joining fights is equal but freelancers, including players from your own alliance, prefer to join us, instead of helping fights initiated by other alliances which wouldn´t be the case if you merged. And as far as driving players away from Vegas, I guess it has more to do with toxic players like yourself that duel them 24/7 and that spam digs and multies like you do sweetheart.

 

[1 Bad Wolf]

Amen Brother!

 

[ScarletKisses]

I personally love this idea, and will promote it to the dev team, but I would consider it highly unlikely for it to be taken up (all similar concepts previously promoted haven't been).

Within the existing rules, the best option for the scenario you face is the permitted "strategic multi":
Dig two battles as close in time as possible and send your attackers to one not the other (ideally have some camp out at the non-target and travel last minute so it's not obvious which target is real)
Provided 10 attackers participate in one of the battles, should the attack fail you would be permitted to attack 3 forts simultaneously on the next attempt, 4 on the attempt after that and 5 on attempts after that until you do prevail.

Wow you are actively encouraging multi digs after all the "rules" on multi digs i really have seen it all now the hypocrisy is not lost on me..

 

[chydovish4e]

if u make holding forts costly, make more benefits of this too

 

[1 Bad Wolf]

tell you what Mrs.Colt, if you ko me in a duel, that a duel not mutils what you are known for, I'll be gladly to give you forts back. Just so we can retake them or any of your minions due to the fact I'm not high enough for you just to make it fair

 

[Huscarle.]

if u make holding forts costly, make more benefits of this too

"Forts in modern American usage often refer to space set aside by governments for a permanent military facility; these often do not have any actual fortifications, and can have specializations (military barracks, administration, medical facilities, or intelligence)."

It would be ideal for forts to provide more benefits, such as logistics, medical services, routes, etc. to at least start maintaining them. I doubt that players would even be willing to pay a maintenance fee for a fort (of any size) for the benefits it currently provides.

 

[Thanatoss]

Something that could be done is the fort to get damaged after battle... Like every 5-10 rounds of ff a random building gets -1lvl

 

[NovaStar]

Perhaps another consideration could be considered as to how many forts are even on the map? WIth the HUGE decrease in game players from the beginning of ff's to now, it would seem that 42 is too many. Of course, forts are being held a long time since not all 42 are even dug in any given year now. In fact, probably less than half of them are. If there were fewer forts, they wouldn't be held as long (possibly). 42 forts, less players, the longer forts are held...the fewer the forts, the more often they would be "exchanged".

 

[Bad Billy Jack]

Once again the easiest way to stop world domination is to make it so no alliance can own over 25% of the forts of each size. Also again this rule is only applied to problem worlds, not every world.

 

[Harriet Oleson]

I think the main idea of this thread (=a cost when we own forts) could be pretty good if the cost would be applied only when an alliance already owns a large amount of forts; and if they don't, it shouldn't cost anything at all.

I'm saying this cause if there were a cost as soon as we own one or a few ones, as other players have already said it could become pretty deterrent to own some (and so to dig) : except for the barracks, showing off and town ranking, forts are useless, so a cost for owning something considered as useless seem rather inapropriate. Giving more advantages to forts owners and their allies could help make the spending worthy and be pretty incentive to dig, but 1- the idea is supposed to prevent abuses in the number of forts owned, so if the new advantages worth the cost, that's not the point at all lol; and 2- when there are advantages to own a fort, it becomes pretty incentive to join the sides who already own forts. And that's where imbalances and complaints start : if most join the side with the more advantages, it can create a "super big alliance able to own all forts", and that's exactly what's supposed to be prevented.

If a cost would be applied only in case of abuses in the number of forts owned though, that's not the same at all : owning a moderate amount of forts would be exactly like before (=rather useless, but with still the town ranking, barracks and the possibility to show off, and this without anything to pay); the cost would just be deterrent against ABUSES, not against digging and owning forts in a reasonable amount.

And about "what amount shouldn't be considered as reasonable anymore ?", my guess is : ideally, I think there should be a cost as soon as an alliance owns more than a number of forts strictly between 42/3 = 14 and 42/2 = 21. For example 18. That's just my opinion based on this reasoning :

Spoiler: under spoiler cause that could surely also be something else, and like that my message seems less long xD

- If less than 14, it could split a world in too many small sides so not so good in my opinion especially in worlds where there are already not so many players in them (each side would be super tiny);
- if exactly 14 or 21, it could lead to stuck situations where 3 sides own 14 forts each or 2 sides own 21 forts each, and none want to dig anymore cause costly if they own more.
- With a number higher than 21, it wouldn't prevent situations where there are only 2 big sides, one bigger owning the most forts while the unique other big side wouldn't manage to win against them and so, everyone may stop digging.

But if strictly between 14 and 21, this could motivate to have at least three sides. To stay with the example where a cost would be applied as soon as an alliance owns more than 18 forts (14 < 18 < 21) : there could be 2 main sides owning 18 forts each (18*2 = 36), and 6 remaining forts for a potential smaller third side. The 2 main alliances could continue to go after each other or after the third side, but if they manage to win more forts, they'd own more than the limit and so would have to pay the cost for each owned fort. Everyone would have interest to give some forts to a third side so everyone could still be able to dig without paying. And even if they don't, the world wouldn't be necessarily stuck neither cause the third side could go after one of them and find co-allies among the other ones; or smaller alliances could go after the third side etc etc. Of course, if the third side isn't weaker than the 2 others, we could also see configurations where each alliance owns near 14 forts without having to pay anything if they own more, or if one of the alliances is way stronger than the 2 others even if they co-ally, we can see configurations where one big alliance owns 18 forts, and the 2 others fight each other for the 24 reamaining forts. Etc etc. With more than 2 big sides, the possibilities are more numerous; and with not too many sides imposed, each side can still be rather big or at least in a world not too much split. Of course it wouldn't prevent neither to see more sides than only 3. Three is only the configuration where a number strictly between 14 and 21 would tend to.