new cm please

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Most of the nay-sayers on these forums (myself included) voice our objections not out of hatred for the game, but from a position of wanting to see the game succeed and grow again.
Exactly, why stick around trying to change an unplayable game, instead of just moving on, unless we really loved the game.

@Hr.Nyborg, being from the Danish servers, you must know that migrations can extend the playability of worlds, and being a player of the game yourself, you know how much time, effort and money are put into our characters and being told to start over and over again every year just to be on an active world doesn't sit well.

So I hope you will lobby, on our behalf, the need for migrations out of dead PvP worlds, into dying ones. We don't really see new players anymore, but we have an incredibly loyal player-base, who are spread out amongst half a dozen worlds while the PvP doesn't function properly on any world, partially due to lack of players.

This won't fix the balancing problems with PvP or stop people from leaving a half-abandoned game, but consolidating the playerbase into viable worlds is a crucial first step (and makes management of events much easier for the staff).

And i am in for the open communication. Or at least as much as i can write about without overstepping what i can say before it is released officially
I really appreciate this, but as things stand, we have no information at all about the future of this, currently unplayable, game. No clue if duelling or fort fights (the heart and soul of The West) will be looked at again, or if we'll just get aimlessly upgraded clothes to warp the early-game even further from its twice award-winning state and then be asked to gamble hundreds of euros on a tombola to complete a new set to keep up with the premium power-creep, which is already too much for the old formulas to deal with.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
doesn't make much sense asking a person in a PR role to fix design direction and development of the game.
Well, nobody expects that, even tho it's L-CM who decides/designs most of the "new" content of the game for some years..

It doesn't make any sense at all but hey..
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
@Poker Alice If you are happy with the casino simulator as it is now, then surely you won't be too upset if the PvP is actually fun again in this amazing former award winning PvP game?

You'll still be able to build or quest or whatever berry pickers do, and your worlds will be much more active, meaning more people to chat to and bigger towns, more active markets for both buying and selling, easier access to crafters, as well as the PvP benefits and the fact that all of the money this game makes relies on PvP.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
I don't wish to live in the past and dwell on former glories of an online video game that I don't own. I know what I like in a game and how I personally would like to see this game evolve however it is a biased opinion in that I don't at all concern myself with how a gaming company makes money. It is not my responsibility, worry or any of my business because it is not my business.

I usually don't get upset as it doesn't really "fix" anything now does it? When I joined, I randomly picked a western historical name and have tried various occupations none of which are call berry picker. I got the impression off this forum that a berry picker was a derogatory label like noob or greenhorn who needs to shine shoes for a living? Okay, I did that one. What I never did however was steal horses. No way Hosea! I can stand on my own without giving in to peer pressure.

What might be a suggestion and certainly not a ridicule is to create one topic/thread and list the ideas that the "nay-sayers on the forum" have around PVP people versus people aspect of the game. That way the same repetitive statements will not need to occupy so many of the threads constantly. I would think by this time that the idea of a constant lobbying of the same dissatisfactions over and over is not going to do much for change except perhaps repel potentially new players away from the forum and/or affect others not to hate the game but definitely to feel unhappy about how it functions.

I got so tired of listening to all the complaining and lamenting over forts I decided that I want nothing more to do with them. In my humble opinion, the west doesn't need to return to its former at all but could still go on to attract new players. Instead of having a constant struggle (even in game messaging) over what equipment or whatever dominates the forts I might cast my preference for more character classes, avatars and interesting crafting professions because that is the most attractive part of the game. I would actually feel better if the forts were removed along with all the excessive ghost towns because of all the trouble they cause.
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Well some talk this have gotten into :-D

First of, in the 3 danish world we have, there is about 250-ish active players - in TOTAL.
So having small worlds here, where the lowest is at about 400+ players, these are actually very active worlds in our view ;-)

But that is why these smaller markeds gets the migration to the .net version, with a language patch over it, so players can still play in their native language, but on these worlds.

Now with migration, closing or / and opening of new worlds here on .net, i am not allowed to disclose of that information before it is 99% sure it will happen. So with this patience must be needed from you the players.

Until then, i myself as a CM can not do that much of a difference, you are completely right in that.
BUT with me in the job now, new "blood and energy" have come to the world, and i will do my best to take all the feedback with me in the weekly meetings i have with the LeadCM. Then stuff might be able to change, or be heard at least. And in my own mind, i am very persistent in trying me best to help the players.
And in the end, this Awesome game.

So my motto for now is, if you dont ask........ you will never get a yes :)
 

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
colorado was one of the most active world untill 2-3 people decide spoil it by dug 4-5 battle a day
in admin stuff view , there is no any problem on it to have battle 3-4 hour apart by one town and one alliance man
lets have one another dead world too , i stoped lead and dig battles in last 1 month and did not join battle also in last 2 week because of lost my enjoyment due of these ,madness digs
inno need to make a something so one town man and little town , alliance have a cap on digging per day , week
 

Beefmeister

Well-Known Member
@Hr.Nyborg are you aware of what happens at the moment on colorado en15?
there are 3 people that dig extra battles only to mess around with the well intentioned people.
this has been a long standing problem that we had on the server for a long time coming. some temporary solutions like banning the individuals were used in the past, when half the people on the server sent tickets to support.

i myself sent 2 tickets in april and the response is that nothing can be done about it, because the so-called rules don't specify any breach. they are basically allowed to dig abusively, for their personal fun, however much they like.

as my fella @C0OPeR said a bit earlier, this has been going on for awhile, 4-5 digs a day, split between 2-3 people. some days we have even 10.
the diggers do not show up to the battles. they always end up as 20vs0, 15vs0, 20vs3 MAX.

in contemporary terms...what is happening is called "Griefing". Griefing is the act of chronically causing consternation to other members of an online community, or more specifically, intentionally disrupting the immersion of another player in their gameplay.

you can ask any of the top 100 players and they will all tell you the same thing, that those trolls do it only to mess around with the community...
hell, you can even go and ask "naughty pumpkin", who is one of the diggers and he'll tell you the truth straight out and why he's doing it. :-D

if the current rules don't allow you or any other person in the staff to do something about it, those rules need to be changed...and not in a year's time or whatever..they need to be changed NOW so this madness stops.

no sane person on colorado wants do dig multi battles. each and last one of us just wants to go to that daily battle...as bad as it is in the current meta.

it's the last time i try to address this issue...i said i will give up after i got my last answer from support, but since they changed the coma, worth a last shot.



later edit: i just saw your post with the changes, with the same model as kansas. i can guarantee that will not work. so i hope you have a long term solution in mind
 
Last edited:

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
I had no prior information about fort battle, battles within the worlds. So this is all new to me.

So yes, i will try to understand the situation these next days, and tweak what i can, to see how it affects the world.
But thank you all for your inputs and your patience with me :)
 

C0OPeR

Well-Known Member
atleast after a 2-3 month , we have somebody , wanna care and wanna do something !
not only say , sorry we can not do anything untill rule ... :/

those trolls do it only to mess around with who enjoy battles on colorado and they reached they goal because INNO dont wanna make any action about these trolls
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Well, guess this is what happens when LCM gets rid of all the competent people (e.g Mods) that actually knows the game and cares about player experiences.

Now all there is left is that, people who are scared to take the initiative and makes things a little bit better.
(Or the incompetent ones)


Let's hope that LCM will allow the new CM to make a difference..
But given the past experiences.. I wouldn't keep my hopes high.
 
Last edited:

Philopoimen

Member
I am playing this game for 2.5 years on Idaho, tried a few other worlds. I hear the same people talk about balance for that amount of time. The arguments, too strong fort fighting sets or the fort fighting formula are favouring attack/defense, never change.

That might be true. However, what I have observes is that when one side starts losing most of the the 'neutral' players are going to winning side, because they like to win. Others are doing substatial recruiting in saloon, often combined by misleading others, who don't follow politics, about fort fight odds; mostly based an old grudges from other servers that goes years back, although they claim others should not bring grudges from other servers. Some people are constantly discredited in saloon for things they havn't done, just to strengthen their own side. Others are trying constantly to discourage players in saloon to leave this server, because they claim its dead, in the hope those players are comming to another server were they play more regularly. These are some of the reasons for unbalanced battles and declining numbers of fort fighters on a server.

I admit that there are a few very strong fort fighting sets. But how are they unballancing the game? What happened on Idaho (and probably most other servers) is that there are only 15 to 20 people left who are attending fort fights regularly. They are equipped with premium sets, VIP character bonus and best available buffs and are purely fort fight build. They make all the difference in a fort fight. If two or three of them change sides or leaving the server they are unballancing fort fighting. Thats just the way it is.

Yes, defense became easier than attack since Cortina set is available. Before that it was the other way around when union officer set became available. So what. Next strong fort fighting set for attack is out its back again.

That said, I really don't want to hear this talk about balanced battles anymore. Balanced battles are a myth. If people on a server want balanced battles they could easily organize them, but they don't, simply because they don't want to. What most people really want are nearly balanced battles they always win so they can get max reward and a win. AND they want always be able to be online for the same reasons, so there is this contantly and very annoying talk about prime time battles on international servers.

So, in the end it's always about ego, and never really about balanced battles.

Have a nice day.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
I like you Phil, so it pains me to have to counter some of your opinions here, but I'll start with this - you might be right that balanced battles are a myth in some sense, there's always a swing of power from one side to the other and back again in a healthy world. I call it the wave.
This isn't what we see anymore though, defence (or attack) side winning every single time is a flaw in the game design that has developed over the years.

But how are they unballancing the game?
Because sets that you acquire from direct nugget purchases or from Day of the Dead are premium content, a very small section of the player-base having upgraded premium content vs the rags that everyone else can find is unbalanced at the expense of the most major piece of content in the entire game for paying customers - the free-to-play players. You talk about 15-20 players coming to battles, well this is what I want to avoid at all costs and why I believe Colorado, with its fort fighting agreement on keeping the sides as even as possible and a dig schedule aimed at including the largest possible circle of users, is the only world to have survived, in stark contrast to Idaho which had no agreements of any sort despite months of trying to reach one with an obstructionist alliance as the opposition.

Yes, defense became easier than attack since Cortina set is available. Before that it was the other way around when union officer set became available. So what. Next strong fort fighting set for attack is out its back again.
This just isn't how it's meant to be, attack and defence should have an equal chance to win any fight based on tactics and the skill of the fighters, not have the outcome pre-determined by virtue of who dug that day. Think about it for a second, does that make any sense at all that the game would have survived to this age if fort battles were pre-determined?

so there is this contantly and very annoying talk about prime time battles on international servers.
I've always deeply sympathised with people from "awkward" time-zones, there should have been US, EU and AUS zone worlds, but it's just simple logistics that the only time we can fill battles is in the "prime time" for that particular world. When you have an alliance whose leaders are almost entirely based on EU and one almost entirely based on US time competing against each other, there's very little viable overlap for leaders to actually lead the fights, but "prime time" is the time tested compromise and only viable way I've ever seen of conducting a long-term fort fighting community.

they want always be able to be online
Generally if battle leaders aren't online for the battle, there's no leader for that battle. This is bad for everyone.

So, in the end it's always about ego, and never really about balanced battles.
I never understood ego in fort alliances, you don't actually get anything for owning a fort in this game, the only enjoyment to be found is in the fair competition of battle. There's no competition anymore, whoever defends, wins.
Maybe things will never go back to the before times when PvP functioned as intended. Whatever, at least I tried to get the game I love back from the clutches of an online casino.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
I am playing this game for 2.5 years on Idaho, tried a few other worlds. I hear the same people talk about balance for that amount of time. The arguments, too strong fort fighting sets or the fort fighting formula are favouring attack/defense, never change.

That might be true. However, what I have observes is that when one side starts losing most of the the 'neutral' players are going to winning side, because they like to win. Others are doing substatial recruiting in saloon, often combined by misleading others, who don't follow politics, about fort fight odds; mostly based an old grudges from other servers that goes years back, although they claim others should not bring grudges from other servers. Some people are constantly discredited in saloon for things they havn't done, just to strengthen their own side. Others are trying constantly to discourage players in saloon to leave this server, because they claim its dead, in the hope those players are comming to another server were they play more regularly. These are some of the reasons for unbalanced battles and declining numbers of fort fighters on a server.

I admit that there are a few very strong fort fighting sets. But how are they unballancing the game? What happened on Idaho (and probably most other servers) is that there are only 15 to 20 people left who are attending fort fights regularly. They are equipped with premium sets, VIP character bonus and best available buffs and are purely fort fight build. They make all the difference in a fort fight. If two or three of them change sides or leaving the server they are unballancing fort fighting. Thats just the way it is.

Yes, defense became easier than attack since Cortina set is available. Before that it was the other way around when union officer set became available. So what. Next strong fort fighting set for attack is out its back again.

That said, I really don't want to hear this talk about balanced battles anymore. Balanced battles are a myth. If people on a server want balanced battles they could easily organize them, but they don't, simply because they don't want to. What most people really want are nearly balanced battles they always win so they can get max reward and a win. AND they want always be able to be online for the same reasons, so there is this contantly and very annoying talk about prime time battles on international servers.

So, in the end it's always about ego, and never really about balanced battles.

Have a nice day.
Very clearly described and very true.
The lies being told are abundant and might also be described as disgraceful.
 

Poker Alice

Well-Known Member
What lies? Reveal unto us the truth from your almighty orifice of wisdom.
reference the second paragraph in Philopoimen post
I am playing this game for 2.5 years on Idaho, tried a few other worlds. I hear the same people talk about balance for that amount of time. The arguments, too strong fort fighting sets or the fort fighting formula are favouring attack/defense, never change.

That might be true. However, what I have observes is that when one side starts losing most of the the 'neutral' players are going to winning side, because they like to win. Others are doing substatial recruiting in saloon, often combined by misleading others, who don't follow politics, about fort fight odds; mostly based an old grudges from other servers that goes years back, although they claim others should not bring grudges from other servers. Some people are constantly discredited in saloon for things they havn't done, just to strengthen their own side. Others are trying constantly to discourage players in saloon to leave this server, because they claim its dead, in the hope those players are comming to another server were they play more regularly. These are some of the reasons for unbalanced battles and declining numbers of fort fighters on a server.

I admit that there are a few very strong fort fighting sets. But how are they unballancing the game? What happened on Idaho (and probably most other servers) is that there are only 15 to 20 people left who are attending fort fights regularly. They are equipped with premium sets, VIP character bonus and best available buffs and are purely fort fight build. They make all the difference in a fort fight. If two or three of them change sides or leaving the server they are unballancing fort fighting. Thats just the way it is.

Yes, defense became easier than attack since Cortina set is available. Before that it was the other way around when union officer set became available. So what. Next strong fort fighting set for attack is out its back again.

That said, I really don't want to hear this talk about balanced battles anymore. Balanced battles are a myth. If people on a server want balanced battles they could easily organize them, but they don't, simply because they don't want to. What most people really want are nearly balanced battles they always win so they can get max reward and a win. AND they want always be able to be online for the same reasons, so there is this contantly and very annoying talk about prime time battles on international servers.

So, in the end it's always about ego, and never really about balanced battles.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
But that is why these smaller markeds gets the migration to the .net version, with a language patch over it, so players can still play in their native language, but on these worlds.
With the last update of Beta..
Now I get what this statement could mean.

You mean.. They might close some "Very Small" markets and migrate them to .Net somehow?
 

Hr.Nyborg

Ex-Team Member
Yes sorry if this was not clear.

The work and talk these coming month is talking about the swedish and danish marked being "closed" and migrate to .net.
 

Ranger-Schwartz

Well-Known Member
First, Welcome Hr.Nyborg!

I am very, very interested in union coming back. The genie is out of the bottle with that set, too powerful or not. Many already have it. For those willing to buy it, please release it this year.

Thank you kindly,
Ranger


So not that i do not want to do anything, but it would seem that there is being done something about those 2 things.
And with a roadmap going on for this year 2021 it might be something we see later this game year :)
[/QUOTE]
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
To be honest though..
I wouldn't expect a big enough wave of players to .Net to save its "Dead" servers.
And that's assuming they'll be allowed..

However.. if they only be allowed to migrate "newest" ones.. It will do no good to the game.

We both witnessed what happened when big wave of them started in Idaho of .Net
Most of them quit the game for good within 6-12 months.


It'd be better if they just merge/migrate within .Net servers too.