• You don't like snow? Turn it off here:

Proposed Community Rule on Abusive Digs

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
The game mechanics provide limited restrictions on the digging of Fort Battles. The only tool available to discourage excessive/abusive digging of fort battles is to increase the base price to dig. This has proven largely ineffective, as on established worlds long-standing towns have millions in treasury and replenish easily, and raising funds is trivial for a committed spammer.

Therefore, in recognition that certain patterns of digs are in violation of the “Code of Conduct”—“Players are expected to treat other players with respect and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner while playing the game” we are committed to establishing community guidelines surrounding the digging of Fort Battles to mitigate such patterns of digs, while appreciating defining a dig as violating the Code of Conduct is difficult and largely subjective.

An objective rule will inevitably forbid circumstances that are not in violation of the Code of Conduct, while failing to address all circumstances that are; however, we believe it is in the best interests of the community to create an objective rule, and use our discretion when enforcing it.

————————
This is a proposal for an all worlds multi rule:

Digging a fort battle within three hours of an existing dig, or reasonably projected to be within 3h of a publicly announced scheduled dig (including standing schedules by alliances representing a majority of regular Fort Battle participants), shall be considered in violation of community standards; there is an exception for 2 digs by the same alliance within 1 hour of eachother (“strategic multis”) and for GM digs. Additionally, 3 or more digs by the same player/town/alliance in any 12h period shall be considered in violation of community standards. Battles in violation of these rules are subject to being rescheduled or canceled upon receipt of a ticket (category: contests and fort battles) identifying the violation, and repeat offenders may be subject to affront points.

—————

We welcome any feedback/suggestions below so that we might refine or reconsider this proposed .net community rule before enactment.

—The West International Team
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
just make it so you cant dig within 3hrs of another dig.
That is a dev-level request that would apply to all markets, and not all markets are in agreement as to what, if any, dig patterns are abusive, and most have the luxury of more limited time-zone exposure which substantially alters the desire to restrict digging in this way.
 

JWillow

Well-Known Member
3 hours between digs is a good set number to have.

Though it is not going to take care of say, a naughty of colorado.
If mods were given the ability to punish those of naughty pumpkin digs, how would they determine if punishable. You would need outlined requirements to be met, right?

Like:
Does the digger promote the dig?
-as usually the prime time battles, the two main alliances have someone(s) whispering and telegramming to fill battle
Is the digger online and leading the battle?
- leaderless battles never do well, and just makes it seem like the digger doesn't want to put time and effort into their own dig

Really if diggers of smaller alliances would use some diplomacy ahead of time(such as getting one side to support) and ensure they are online and actively leading, these off prime battles might be less of an issue. As they stand now, they waste players buffs and time.

I will say thanks to hrnyborg, at least NP actually shows up most of the time now. So maybe NP can improve if given motivation i.e punished, as it seems to had some effect and maybe the digs could improve to have some sustainability of being small off prime battles that are not slaughters from the start.

Once again, 3 hours between digs as an overall rule is good but abusive diggers will be harder to nail down set rules and requirements to label them as such.


Thank you for trying to fix the issue. It is always a pain to open battle window and have to look through 3 or more to find the one real battle, meaning a battle that tries to fill and has a leader to lead the headless chickens we seem to become even if we got the basics down.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
3 hours between digs is a good set number to have.

Though it is not going to take care of say, a naughty of colorado.
If mods were given the ability to punish those of naughty pumpkin digs, how would they determine if punishable. You would need outlined requirements to be met, right?

Like:
Does the digger promote the dig?
-as usually the prime time battles, the two main alliances have someone(s) whispering and telegramming to fill battle
Is the digger online and leading the battle?
- leaderless battles never do well, and just makes it seem like the digger doesn't want to put time and effort into their own dig

Really if diggers of smaller alliances would use some diplomacy ahead of time(such as getting one side to support) and ensure they are online and actively leading, these off prime battles might be less of an issue. As they stand now, they waste players buffs and time.

I will say thanks to hrnyborg, at least NP actually shows up most of the time now. So maybe NP can improve if given motivation i.e punished, as it seems to had some effect and maybe the digs could improve to have some sustainability of being small off prime battles that are not slaughters from the start.

Once again, 3 hours between digs as an overall rule is good but abusive diggers will be harder to nail down set rules and requirements to label them as such.


Thank you for trying to fix the issue. It is always a pain to open battle window and have to look through 3 or more to find the one real battle, meaning a battle that tries to fill and has a leader to lead the headless chickens we seem to become even if we got the basics down.

At this stage the effort is to develop an all-worlds rule and needs to take into account the rather different environment of any future worlds in their early days.

Within reason, we will welcome tickets for other battles "offensive to the community" in order to help identify objectively determinable patterns from which to establish additional rules for "established worlds" (those older than 2 years); flooding the ticket system over each battle is not an answer. I personally will end up handling many of these and I would hope you all understand putting a lot of workload on my plate is not productive for the community.

I am well aware of NP's activities and that this would still permit 'er to dig up to 3 (insert your own adjective here) battles every day between 3h after the day's primetime battle and 15:00 the following day, at least on days no one else digs off prime. "No show" digs would be a factor to consider, as would "No rank" digs, and "Unled" digs and "Unrecruited" digs, but individually those elements are typically excusable in most cases, not to mention NP has attended and given ranks at most recent digs. Furthermore, the tools at the mods disposal were not designed to be able to identify those characteristics. We can only be clued into them via the ticket system, and in most cases cannot verify them without using third-party tools, if at all, which are generally not acceptable basis for giving affront points.
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
What a load of tosh, what is wrong with more than one battle going on at the same time ? why shouldn't alliance towns call x2 at exactly same time ? Especially in worlds where one group might dominate say smalls theres legit strategy to calling exactly the same time or any town on their own and what business is it of anyone elses how people choose to play ? .. couldnt care less what upset it causes another side thats what PvP is supposed to be, theres ways to combat it with some effort like its always been .. really shouldnt be hard to moderate abuse call patterns though.. not when theres so few players left and hardly any battles anyway.. case by case basis is all it should take with common sense.

Everything that looks like nail does not mean take a sledgehammer to it.. wasting time on tiny issues and ignoring the big ones.. like WHERES the PLAYER BASE ? gone from 80k to barely 1,500 in a new world now in just 6 mths, wonderful :/ . Vegas is already all but DEAD and your talking about multis like its a problem now but was fine to handle for a decade ? ridiculous. Is this is because a tiny player base want everything organised to their wishes as usual and set like some football match league table ? .. i suspect so.. pathetic what this game has become really and nothing wild about it left but a few renegades i guess. Boy has this game got its priorities mixed up ... rules rules rules ..... yea most didnt play this game to have rules piled on to stifle all creativity and strategies.. nerfed everything until its become pathetic and stale and look at it now ? pretty much ruined by greed and pandering to the want it all now, pay to be instantly good and you want to add more silly rules to help those same weak effort instant gratification players sanitise things even more ? good job n see how that boosts the player base shall we ? :up:

My opinion bottom line ... STOP pandering to the few whining premadonnas and stanitizing the goddamn game all the time and put some effort into what REALLY MATTERS, ATTRACTING PLAYERS and fix the problems already there like OP sets or inability for attacks to win 95% of the time etc which kills activirty more than anything .. its not like there isnt a HUGE player base wish for such things to be sorted but naaaa .. that would take some effort despite having all the feedback for a decade or more ... do whatever to sanitise things more instead of fixing the real issues ..see how that goes in 6 mths
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
What a load of tosh, what is wrong with more than one battle going on at the same time ? why shouldn't alliance towns call x2 at exactly same time ? Especially in worlds where one group might dominate say smalls theres legit strategy to calling exactly the same time or any town on their own and what business is it of anyone elses how people choose to play ? .. couldnt care less what upset it causes another side thats what PvP is supposed to be, theres ways to combat it with some effort like its always been .. really shouldnt be hard to moderate abuse call patterns though.. not when theres so few players left and hardly any battles anyway.. case by case basis is all it should take with common sense.

Everything that looks like nail does not mean take a sledgehammer to it.. wasting time on tiny issues and ignoring the big ones.. like WHERES the PLAYER BASE ? gone from 80k to barely 1,500 in a new world now in just 6 mths, wonderful :/ . Vegas is already all but DEAD and your talking about multis like its a problem now but was fine to handle for a decade ? ridiculous. Is this is because a tiny player base want everything organised to their wishes as usual and set like some football match league table ? .. i suspect so.. pathetic what this game has become really and nothing wild about it left but a few renegades i guess. Boy has this game got its priorities mixed up ... rules rules rules ..... yea most didnt play this game to have rules piled on to stifle all creativity and strategies.. nerfed everything until its become pathetic and stale and look at it now ? pretty much ruined by greed and pandering to the want it all now, pay to be instantly good and you want to add more silly rules to help those same weak effort instant gratification players sanitise things even more ? good job n see how that boosts the player base shall we ? :up:

My opinion bottom line ... STOP pandering to the few whining premadonnas and stanitizing the goddamn game all the time and put some effort into what REALLY MATTERS, ATTRACTING PLAYERS and fix the problems already there like OP sets or inability for attacks to win 95% of the time etc which kills activirty more than anything .. its not like there isnt a HUGE player base wish for such things to be sorted but naaaa .. that would take some effort despite having all the feedback for a decade or more ... do whatever to sanitise things more instead of fixing the real issues ..see how that goes in 6 mths
I’ll note that your very first point — allowing two simultaneous digs — is already in the original proposal. As for the rest, those are by and large dev/corporate level requests outside the scope of my mandate to work within the powers of The West International Team to improve the fort battle aspects of the game.
I will pass along your feedback though.
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Yea sadly Goob (or CMs for that matter) doesn't have any power to do something about the real issues that we have been talking about for years.

Even this decision isn't something he can make either, but with some support of ours he hopefully can convince the CM or something.

We should/must appreciate that at least.
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Something that might work for Colorado won´t work that well for the wastelands of other worlds without barely any diggers (except for GM fights).
It´s not like multi digs were not already addressed by support team in the past, either by changing dig times or banning players in extreme cases.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Something that might work for Colorado won´t work that well for the wastelands of other worlds without barely any diggers (except for GM fights).
It´s not like multi digs were not already addressed by support team in the past, either by changing dig times or banning players in extreme cases.
Yes, it has long been the practice for mods to move digs on request, handled on a case by case basis often involving the CM and delays. Punishments for abusive player has been exclusively the realm of the CM and without an objective standard is difficult to justify and often ends up being based on secondary issues.
The idea here is to make clear policy for when digs can be moved without digger consent, so they can be processed immediately with ready policy to guide non-disruptive players on how to avoid problematic digs.
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
I’ll note that your very first point — allowing two simultaneous digs — is already in the original proposal. As for the rest, those are by and large dev/corporate level requests outside the scope of my mandate to work within the powers of The West International Team to improve the fort battle aspects of the game.
I will pass along your feedback though.

I know m8 and it was just an example,.. but there are lots of small alliances and theoretically could have lots of battles called and would be curbed by such new rules and never have a chance at anything, the little guys not only got no chance but also potentially stopped from using such a tactic for who ? the big alliances who already have everything else their own way already by sheer numbers and FF domination .. we USED to have little alliances with the odd fort becuase it was possible to get one by sneak tactics, not for long maybe but sure id encourage it and small alliances had a chance to have fun too n get a fort if only for a few days .. before the bigger alliances & nugget munchers ofc forced their own self made up rules on worlds ... and has helped ruin activity further on most regular worlds by doing so imo...

Colorado is different true, as it was always THE event FF world and a rota became necessary to avoid other problems in my time running events. And continued as a method for world health/balance and works because most players move about alliances, or towns to keep true balance. Plus no one is trying to "control " the world or dominate it all like most the other worlds do but................ it is still a showcase world n nothing like exciting or organic let alone a rise of some unexpected new force etc. ( maybe its about time ? )

Why would i want or agree to do what another alliance demands of me for all FF on a certain world let alone some game enforced restrictive rule, should I choose my dueling to suit others too or perhaps regulate the clothes that are acceptable to FF in next ? naaa id rather stick pins in my eyes thx so i wont FF at the behest of others rules imposed on me or my game .. no chance ill go with that nor FF on other fussy rota based worlds, or buy FF stuff or spend $ to do so, simple. They dont really care about balance anyway just what suits themselves best for thier huge investments ofc they want to dominate and own everyones ass .. dont kid yourselves its not like that when it 100% IS and DO.

Nevermind, not my loss and im sure im not missed in FF by the huggies who make all the noise about activity and numbers but still impose stupid rules on all who wish to mess about in forts..Like its a rota calling agreed on application list and doing ME a favour, as long as its on others terms ... naaa stuff that, ive never gone along with such bs and never will .. ho hum each to their own game I say n ill find something to shoot one way or another so np for my game at all, just a shame its got to that now.

Its not on you Goob i know that, n you know im right behind your outstanding efforts and long may it continue ..However .. Beta has long voiced is concern,s pretty much since 2012 on. Along with the old main forum of hundreds if not thousands over the years, dozens of moderators and CMs over many many servers.. it has all fallen on deaf ears pretty much every single time, the player base is once again asked for input and here we are with "its different this time" but the last 10 x it was gonna be different .. it wasnt !. and i dont believe itll be any different in the twilight of a once great game, sorry Just speaking the truth of what ive seen and think now.. You can pass on what you deem worthy and please send my English Agincourt salute regards along to the senior management in Germany too for listening to their $ contributing paymasters so well the past decade and milking their Golden Goose shamelessly.
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
One possibly helpful clarification:
“2 digs by the same alliance” need not mean “same allyid”. It’s understood that an “alliance” can include multiple allyids and unallied towns. What makes a “strategic multi” is the two digs were dug with both diggers aware of eachother coordinating to intentionally dig within an hour of eachother, and we will attempt to inquire about that (as was done on Las Vegas recently)
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
One possibly helpful clarification:
“2 digs by the same alliance” need not mean “same allyid”. It’s understood that an “alliance” can include multiple allyids and unallied towns. What makes a “strategic multi” is the two digs were dug with both diggers aware of eachother coordinating to intentionally dig within an hour of eachother, and we will attempt to inquire about that (as was done on Las Vegas recently)
More or less the intent is to obstruct the opportunistic digs where a player digs in conflict with a “real” battle trying to sneakily take a fort and in effect merely interfering with the gameplay of others by 1) forcing them to accept a worse “real” battle by
A) directing enough defenders to the “crap” battle, or
B) watching players go to the wrong battle by mistake, ot
C) watching players say “screw it, can’t be bothered to figure out the “real” battle so I want go to any”, or
2) needing to diverge from their normal schedule to recapture the fort
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
How about a secret pact of a few alliances all calling at once ? .. say small alliances all hitting on a main dominating alliance in a world ? Say 3 or 5 small alliances decided to all try and go for a fort each at the same time or maybe with the help and support of a bigger alliance to try and rejig the world a bit and or break a fort dominated world ? ... all of this has been done before btw its nothing new and sure any dominating alliance would get them back in a few weeks but the FUN was there and the feeling in a small maybe part time playing town or alliance they actually mattered, or could actually achieve something despite being small and therefore worth sticking around .. this proposal would kill any option or pacts forming or being useful .. they rarely do anyways now least ive not seen it since returning anywhere but the opportunity should imo always been there and encouraged not stifled for the few elite cos it upsets their timetable to FF on Vegas at 8 , Colorado at 9 Juraz at 10 then Idaho at 11 etc etc and yes this is going on big time, i see it and been in some of these alliances watching the "arranged" timings between players so they can FF on 5 different worlds when it suits them.. woe betide when it dosnt and the hissy fits ive seen over it.

Why should a town say they have built a fort alone lose it to some big alliance and never have a way of getting it back without becoming part of a bigger alliance ? because it suits the elite and inos coffers thats why, not because you can forge your own town path or gang as touted ... now thats potentially subject to big brother Inno too ?.. i know things have changed over the years to pander to the weak and easy want it now player and look where we are ? Vegas is a perfect example .. many many unbuilt forts yet mostly snapped up by the big boys cos it was easy to do so and barely any not owned by the main two .. and others wont be built because why bother when they will just be stolen anyway ? the main alliances dont care a jot about the forts and dont build them either... cos why bother its just another fort and who really cares about the state of forts but towers and walls now right ? result forts are dead, unbuilt and will stay that way and FF will continue to decline on Vegas faster than most old worlds now.... come back in a year n see if im not right ;)

I see no benefit in making stricter rules for calling forts other than to pander to those who cannot handle anything different or outside their little comfort zones or worse older vets who have simply become lazy .... from time to time imo chaos is good. chaos brings excitement and the unknown and people react and have to put in some effort ( no bad thing ) to return order out of chaos.. .. and one more thing... there is plenty of great fun to be had in smaller attended battles.. 5 v 5 etc x5 at once or others .. and if you dont think so.... youve been playing the game all wrong and stuck in an illusion world of big clubs and only big battles being the only fun...WRONG thats an elites perspective, for many small towns the dream was just to have their own fort to work on and as a town thrive and partly why so many old worlds were such a success and now legendary.

When was the last time anyone gained last man standing award in battle like some old vets have ? ill wager a long long time ago and you wont be seeing any soon if battles become enforced timetables .. all those small alliances and towns, some would if they could & might bother with forts if they had any chance at all or any point on going for them to have something to call theirs for a change ? instead of being offered a sleep spot for support like a puppy in tow... possibly... yea we know the tricks used & its all to facilitate the same domination and strategy of fort security. .. let Chaos always be a possibility .. its natural and 100% in tune with nature .. stop sanitizing things and wherever possible allow creativity and ideas outside the box room to grow.. Ideas and solutions come out of Chaos, order comes from Chaos.. Spontaneity cannot and does not exist without the existence or risk of Chaos.. The enemy of this game imo has always been those who seek to change it to their own vision and control how others play.. try to remember its THE WEST not the NBA.

Sorry for the long posts but its a topic ive heard n been vocal about forever since workers wanted duel protection because they deemed themselves to be "special" and so expect special treatment.. ummm no and i feel just as strongly about arranged FF .. its disgusting to even see the word arranged & acceptable times.. .. almost as bad as telling people they cant or shouldnt call at 4am .. yea thats been a thing too ..
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Mods (and me as I’d likely handle most of these) have discretion and can choose to accept a proposal to permit a larger strategic dig. Particularly if we are approached in advance and a couple tries at a standard strategic multi have failed
 

szycopath

Well-Known Member
just make it so you cant dig within 3hrs of another dig.

Naaaah, there's that rare occasion during events when we're crowded and we had that battle dug for low lvl-ers. it makes sense to have it at roughly the same time, also this kind of thing should be added to the exceptions but it's not happening too often anyway
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Long posts to reply to, so apologies in advance.
I think @Victor Kruger is wrong. He's not been wrong often but he's way off the mark here.

really shouldnt be hard to moderate abuse call patterns though..
That's the point of this "rule"/guideline/whatever, there's absolutely no way to interpret the rules as they stand to deal with abusive digs.
Abusive digs aren't "oh-em-gee they dug two battles at once which one do we go to", it's not "boo hoo they dug at a time that isn't suitable for ME".
It's not even "well this battle will probably be full, so we'll dig a secondary battle for the smaller people too"
Goob specifically states that legitimate multi-battles are allowed as a tactical measure or as a way to be more inclusive at event times.

Abusive digs are where the entire fort fighting community can't have normal operations due to one player, where no one can enjoy forts because one person thinks it's funny to mess with everyone.
When casual players open the fort overview and see 4-10 battles to pick from, they just close it again, which reduces with the quality of the "scheduled" (scheduled in the sense that each side takes turns attacking and defending, which is important when one side is heavily favoured by the current set meta) battle that day, or in the worst case they just won't look again because they've seen this spam kill their worlds before.
1648821498109.png
1648821510281.png


Everything that looks like nail does not mean take a sledgehammer to it.. wasting time on tiny issues and ignoring the big ones.. like WHERES the PLAYER BASE ? gone from 80k to barely 1,500 in a new world now in just 6 mths, wonderful :/ . Vegas is already all but DEAD and your talking about multis like its a problem now but was fine to handle for a decade ? ridiculous
I see two separate issues here - yes the new worlds are failing every time and yes the player-base is a fraction of what it once was. If you want a free-for-all domination then you can play on Idaho, Juarez, Kansas, Vegas, and see how long the fort fighting lasts there.
A playerbase that's too small to support multiple worlds isn't Goober's responsibility to fix, Goob is managing fort fighting, and the one world where fort fighting is any good is Colorado. Ever wonder why that is? Doesn't it makes sense to focus his attention there and just let the trash worlds do their thing before their nomadic playerbases move to the next year-long world?

Colorado is different true, as it was always THE event FF world and a rota became necessary to avoid other problems in my time running events. And continued as a method for world health/balance and works because most players move about alliances, or towns to keep true balance. Plus no one is trying to "control " the world or dominate it all like most the other worlds do but................ it is still a showcase world n nothing like exciting or organic let alone a rise of some unexpected new force etc. ( maybe its about time ? )
How about a secret pact of a few alliances all calling at once ? .. say small alliances all hitting on a main dominating alliance in a world ? Say 3 or 5 small alliances decided to all try and go for a fort each at the same time or maybe with the help and support of a bigger alliance to try and rejig the world a bit and or break a fort dominated world ? ... all of this has been done before btw its nothing new and sure any dominating alliance would get them back in a few weeks but the FUN was there and the feeling in a small maybe part time playing town or alliance they actually mattered, or could actually achieve something despite being small and therefore worth sticking around .. this proposal would kill any option or pacts forming or being useful .. they rarely do anyways now least ive not seen it since returning anywhere but the opportunity should imo always been there and encouraged not stifled for the few elite cos it upsets their timetable to FF on Vegas at 8 , Colorado at 9 Juraz at 10 then Idaho at 11 etc etc and yes this is going on big time, i see it and been in some of these alliances watching the "arranged" timings between players so they can FF on 5 different worlds when it suits them.. woe betide when it dosnt and the hissy fits ive seen over it.

You have no idea how much I, and I suspect most players, would genuinely welcome a new unexpected force to come and make battles competitive again.
I've always and always will encourage small alliances to have battles, on Colorado there's forts reserved for small alliances to fight over, without the big alliances getting involved if that's what they wish - but when was the last time the small guys had a fight? The option is there - the player-base is so dead that they can't support that anymore. It's far more common these days for a small alliance to engage in diplomacy to gain the support of one of the fort alliances, to declare a battle against their rival fort alliance.
The day we stop being inclusive to Small alliances that wish to participate is the day Colorado has died.

I'll admit to being against the artificial alliances for balance purposes at first, I hated the concept because I thought it would reduce the competitiveness, but that never happened and Colorado survived with competitive, daily, fort battles. And I can admit when I'm wrong.
So you'll acknowledge that new worlds don't retain players, you'll acknowledge that Colorado still has the most active fort fighting scene, possibly in the entire game across all servers, but can't put 2+2 together to realise it's because of diplomacy and taking the balance issues that the game has into our own hands because we refuse to let Colorado die the same death everywhere else has suffered.

STOP pandering to the few whining premadonnas and stanitizing the goddamn game all the time and put some effort into what REALLY MATTERS, ATTRACTING PLAYERS and fix the problems already there like OP sets or inability for attacks to win 95% of the time etc which kills activirty more than anything .. its not like there isnt a HUGE player base wish for such things to be sorted but naaaa .. that would take some effort despite having all the feedback for a decade or more ... do whatever to sanitise things more instead of fixing the real issues ..see how that goes in 6 mths
You'll see that new worlds do actually attract players, they just don't stick around for long. Juarez and Kansas both have >30k accounts, yet Juarez has 667 active and Kansas has 1224 active, accounts, Colorado has more active accounts combined, more players engaged in the PvP, more players buying nuggets and keeping the game alive.
LV with 10k total accounts and down to 3k remaining in less than a year. We all know what will happen when World M opens.

What do you actually want or expect Goober to do about player retention? Can you give one example of what we could do with fort battles to persuade players to stick around that otherwise wouldn't?

@Victor Kruger I know you're coming from the right place with the best intentions of the game in mind, but no one is trying to restrict anyone's ability to fort fight, or to have multi battles if you're a njub who uses those to take over forts, and I don't have a clue why you brought up duelling here, but no one's stopping you from duelling anyone you want either.
All I see is a proposal to do what many Community Managers have done previously, and try to prevent abusive digs targeted at preventing or lowering the quality of fort battles.

No one cares about conflicting battles on multiple worlds, no one cares about small alliances rising up to challenge anyone, we simply don't want Colorado to turn into every world that proceeded it because of a disruptive little troll that doesn't even lead their own battles, creates no gameplay value and only serves to undermine the enjoyment that we can still get from this absolute disgrace of a casino simulator that used to be a really fun PvP game.

If the biggest issue that you find with Colorado's fort fighting community is that we've come to the conclusion after many years that it's most fun for everyone when we dig battles on alternating days especially when one side is heavily favoured as it has been for the last few years, while ignoring the abusive Naughty Pumpkin spam, then I think you have your priorities mess up.
 
Last edited:

Snr Sarg

Well-Known Member
What a load of tosh, what is wrong with more than one battle going on at the same time ? why shouldn't alliance towns call x2 at exactly same time ? Especially in worlds where one group might dominate say smalls theres legit strategy to calling exactly the same time or any town on their own and what business is it of anyone elses how people choose to play ? .. couldnt care less what upset it causes another side thats what PvP is supposed to be, theres ways to combat it with some effort like its always been .. really shouldnt be hard to moderate abuse call patterns though.. not when theres so few players left and hardly any battles anyway.. case by case basis is all it should take with common sense.

Everything that looks like nail does not mean take a sledgehammer to it.. wasting time on tiny issues and ignoring the big ones.. like WHERES the PLAYER BASE ? gone from 80k to barely 1,500 in a new world now in just 6 mths, wonderful :/ . Vegas is already all but DEAD and your talking about multis like its a problem now but was fine to handle for a decade ? ridiculous. Is this is because a tiny player base want everything organised to their wishes as usual and set like some football match league table ? .. i suspect so.. pathetic what this game has become really and nothing wild about it left but a few renegades i guess. Boy has this game got its priorities mixed up ... rules rules rules ..... yea most didnt play this game to have rules piled on to stifle all creativity and strategies.. nerfed everything until its become pathetic and stale and look at it now ? pretty much ruined by greed and pandering to the want it all now, pay to be instantly good and you want to add more silly rules to help those same weak effort instant gratification players sanitise things even more ? good job n see how that boosts the player base shall we ? :up:

My opinion bottom line ... STOP pandering to the few whining premadonnas and stanitizing the goddamn game all the time and put some effort into what REALLY MATTERS, ATTRACTING PLAYERS and fix the problems already there like OP sets or inability for attacks to win 95% of the time etc which kills activirty more than anything .. its not like there isnt a HUGE player base wish for such things to be sorted but naaaa .. that would take some effort despite having all the feedback for a decade or more ... do whatever to sanitise things more instead of fixing the real issues ..see how that goes in 6 mths

^ this ^

Just let people dig whenever and whatever they want - if the game allows it, then allow it, or change the game mechanics

From your favourite renegade :D
 

Snr Sarg

Well-Known Member
More or less the intent is to obstruct the opportunistic digs where a player digs in conflict with a “real” battle trying to sneakily take a fort and in effect merely interfering with the gameplay of others by 1) forcing them to accept a worse “real” battle by
A) directing enough defenders to the “crap” battle, or
B) watching players go to the wrong battle by mistake, ot
C) watching players say “screw it, can’t be bothered to figure out the “real” battle so I want go to any”, or
2) needing to diverge from their normal schedule to recapture the fort

What's wrong with that though, seems a perfectly acceptable strategy for the small town/alliance if you ask me
 
Top