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

Proposed Community Rule on Abusive Digs

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
What's wrong with that though, seems a perfectly acceptable strategy for the small town/alliance if you ask me
In theory, nothing. In practice it is less likely than the headbangers at the TdF winning a stage (and even if it does happen the reward/glory is negligible) and so it only serves to make the game less enjoyable for the vast majority of players.
 

PrancingPurplePony

Well-Known Member
seems to me that removing the 'sole survivor' quest in the gold clovers and any other event might cut down on some of the 'extra' battles. I do not recall such an abundant number of fort fights the rest of the time and I noticed during the event last year that some times on Colorado there were about a dozen battles a day. If there are few if any people at a fight, that should make that quest obtainable, where otherwise it is very difficult.
I realize that is not something Goober can fix, that is an Inno issue.
 

Victor Kruger

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.


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.



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?




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.


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.

To cut it all short lulu .. Colorado is no longer my concern since leaving the team as Fort Event Marshall etc in 2015 ill add Colorado was in fantastic health when i retired with the arrival of V2 & passed that care onto others. I see and think overall its been well managed and a success, im not suggesting it isnt & Im well aware what the difference between strategic multi is or wasnt there or anywhere else, could deal with problems from 40k then should be simple with 10k now .. im not sure we are even on the same convo because you all about Colo and im saying its the exception and a showcase world dont treat others like Colo because it wont work on them imo

The rules have never been clear.. dont waste time pretending they are needed on Colo now when its not.. just do it with the ban hammer if need be .. interpret as desired like always has happened when required .... get on with it... dont fret and ask the player base, make that decision as mods or CM is supposed to and act.. case over move on and deal with the important stuff.

My understanding was this is a game wide proposition but it seems the problem is only Colorado.. did it even need a thread in that case ? because if it affects all worlds then i do care yes and take issue with other "sheetty " worlds being told they dont matter .. they do to some in them .. very much so or have you forgotten what a home world feels like after so long ? One other little thing about older quiet worlds.. imo fort battle can be as much fun with 15 a side as they are full .. not maybe for the stat padders and damage prostitutes but normal causal players having simple good old fashioned fun and finding it as and where it pops up... last man standing awards far more likely and 1 vs 1 ive no issue with at all either... others may mock but if im the one in that 1 v 1 ill have as much fun as if it were full and i wouldnt gove a stuff about what enyone else said who wernt there.. how would they even know what its like ? I do many many times .. but thats just me being quirky and as long as ive got at least one to shoot at.. im a happy bunny and will make it fun and much more than facing a def of 70 vs 50 attack and being raped in 20 rds .. no thx ill take 1 v 1 every time over that. But thats me.

I wasnt even talking about the effects on Colo tbh its the most mothered word for FF there is so get on with mothering it i say no need to involve the entire .net server. If its only about having sanitised larger filled battles arranged like a football table of home and away matches rinse repeat then if people get off on the excitement of that, good on them.. .. I dont care to play ring a rosie much, if ive no skin to lose in the game to me its not gonna keep my attn for long. I personally like chaos & making sense of that n overcoming whatever it throws up but i realise most do not. Not anymore anyway.

If youd welcome a new force there on Colo do something about that, plenty of opportunity it only takes the will and someones dedication, but I know it wont be me this time around.

Im not asking anything OF goober you know im not or expecting a wave of any magic wand I tried to be quite specific where my angst lays im well aware what he does what hes up against and the likely results long term, come on you know me better than that lulu and the care Colo has had since the very beginning we both know better than 99% ever will ... the issue of the player base problem has been there forever and undealt with.. again not my problem or expectations on goober.. I dont know how you missed my passage on that part or what i think of his efforts.. Did you miss my other posts ?
 
Last edited:

Al35ul

Well-Known Member
Wait whatttt? Colorado is still a thing :oh:? I thought that world went down when pty and musa deleted
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I’ll note that there are three recent issues on three separate worlds with many tickets filed that let to this:
The abusive player on Colorado
A strategic multi on Houston
The situation in Las Vegas

Elucidating some guidelines on strategic multis to avoid having to handle a batch of tickets every time they occur is a major driver (likewise having the guidance for our supporters to know how to address such tickets quickly and consistently). In fact you’ll see this proposal is actually nearly useless for Colorado’s specific problem, though it does provide some parameters that may make it more tolerable.
 
Last edited:

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I’ll note that there are three recent issues on three separate worlds with many tickets filed that let to this:
The abusive player on Colorado
A strategic multi on Houston
The situation in Las Vegas

Elucidating some guidelines on strategic multis to avoid having to handle a batch of tickets every time they occur is a major driver (likewise having the guidance for our supporters to know how to address such tickets quickly and consistently). In fact you’ll see this proposal is actually nearly useless for Colorado’s specific problem, though it does provide some parameters that may make it more tolerable.
We of course could just create a dictate and impose it. I am trying to instead solicit input to refine the proposal and/or pre-identify some internal interpretive guidance so whatever rule we do come up with at least has a better chance of not causing more community strife than it solves.
 

Smiggy28

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

but this is a proper strategic play and maybe the only way that player/town/alliance could win a fort. the problem with stopping this is that you're then forcing players to play how the main alliances dictate, stopping freedom of play.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
but this is a proper strategic play and maybe the only way that player/town/alliance could win a fort. the problem with stopping this is that you're then forcing players to play how the main alliances dictate, stopping freedom of play.
To a point I agree, but ultimately fort battles are a multiplayer pvp aspect of the game and catering to the short lived joy of a tiny minority at the expense of the vast majority isn’t in the interest of the community
 

Smiggy28

Member
To a point I agree, but ultimately fort battles are a multiplayer pvp aspect of the game and catering to the short lived joy of a tiny minority at the expense of the vast majority isn’t in the interest of the community

but neither is the other way where we get slaughtered at every FF by the huge alliance who all seem to either have level 3 Cortina gear or Union gear, but because they're the vast majority they get to dictate how FF's now go? so basically nothing will change and this discussion is completely pointless?
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
but neither is the other way where we get slaughtered at every FF by the huge alliance who all seem to either have level 3 Cortina gear or Union gear, but because they're the vast majority they get to dictate how FF's now go? so basically nothing will change and this discussion is completely pointless?
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
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
We of course could just create a dictate and impose it. I am trying to instead solicit input to refine the proposal and/or pre-identify some internal interpretive guidance so whatever rule we do come up with at least has a better chance of not causing more community strife than it solves.

I do understand always the latest team members feel they have to "fix" something and thats what a fresh pair of eyes are good for but also sometime less is more and it seems to me as the game dies theres more focus on mothering the crybabys than getting new blood into the game ... the few ive got to join past years have all said relatively the same thing of the player base now... too many entitled adults having temper tantrums and too many spoiled kids acting like brats being indulged. The moment difference of opinion ensues theres false outrage hurt all over the place and dramas.. cant even joke without getting reported when theres no context.. those players, ( some returning old vets ) are all now gone and i have to say they had a point .. i see it all the time.

You dont think maybe having a reporting option on every little thing dosnt just encourage increasing whining and demands to fix what amounts to little more than petty fluff when the elephant sized issues in the room are totally and repeatedly ignored ?
We live in a woke, weak character and low effort world now so its hardly surprising the more report options, the more it encourages whining about everything or anything some players can.. not necessarily because there an issue with anything but a players personal mental character, or lack of.

Case in point, the last update putting report options on everything ..I had town profile deleted the very next day after 6mths it being there .. why ? Because. I know its simply i duel a lot and make butthurt victims accordingly & its a way for the weak and whiny to have their petty victory unobtainable in any other manner. Some njub could one click whine now, but couldnt be bothered before, it was that worth reporting for the past 6mths ... not... No contact from the mod team nor notification or infraction, it simply got wiped .. p00f gone, it was that professionally handled. Ho hum wont be the 100th time thats happened to me so i could'nt care less, just a good example of how reporting can be imo abused. Every time you enable more complaint options it enboldens any whiners or trolls to think they might have a result, eventually every tiny issue is amplified to seem a bigger issue than it is.. can see it in thew world around us all the time.

It sounds like the ticket amounts are more if not equal to years ago when there were 10x more playing which tbh would not surprise me. If its 10x less then it should be a breeze because it was only ever a biggie with new worlds opening from my memory.

Sometimes we can encourage dissatisfaction and pointless moaning by simply giving it too much attention.. people have no backbone anymore it seems and everyone wants an excuse to report something or someone.. I do hope Inno is using the data to keep up with the whining and reporting woke brigade who seem to make a career out of being offended .. you might notice an unhealthy pattern emerging Goob and there is such a thing as the serial moaner & outrage mob who complains about anything they can find or often the same bad actors or towns/alliance because its an easy way out.. no effort req just cry to daddy Inno etc instead of maybe just growing a pair.

Again thats nothing new about any of this yet the tolerance for multi accounters and policing that properly has gone right out the window it seems .. ofc if it makes Inno $ then the less strict the better & it does sometimes seem the big spenders are instantly "forgiven" far more than others .. excuse my sarcasm its not directed at anyone specific.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Just for the record, I am not a moderator on any world. I have zero access to the affront system and only can access tickets assigned to me or in the fort battle category.
I am first and foremost a player liaison; the role I am trying to fulfill here.
 

Kidd Kalypso

Well-Known Member
In the past, peeps got the proverbial ban hammer when multis were overly called(Jordy in w12 I believe comes to mind). Did not agree with that then, don't agree with it now. Multis are allowed, have always been allowed and should always be allowed. It is just a tactic. If peeps want to get their collective panties in a wad over it, meh.....let them go play Farmville 2.0
As always, just my opinion.......ymmv.
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
The thing is, multi battles don't matter and owning forts doesn't matter - the only reason that the game gives us to own a fort is to have a fort battle with it.

That's why colorado ignores multi spam from 3rd parties and tries to just have our daily battle.

As a player, loading in and seeing multiple battles, your reaction depends on your experience. Some can look for the real battle, some will go to a random battle and some will just close the fort overview and try again another day.
Eventually all will get sick of that world and quit if its sustained for long enough.

As a battle leader, it's obviously frustrating to give your time and energy to something that turns out to be less fun that it should be, because of a player not even connected to the battle you're trying to hold.
That's the situation on colorado, and we can't afford to lose more leaders...

Our playerbase is not in a healthy place, you all know that, I don't want stupid reasons for more people to quit - like battles being "ruined" by a spammers with no intention of owning forts or leading competitive fort battles.

But yeah no one should care enough to wake up at 3am to defend a fort from a spammer - just set offline and let then have it if they win - literally doesn't matter who owns the fort - just that we can have a fun and competitive battle.

Also fwiw my favourite defence against "genuine strategic multis" is to multi right back, and ignore the digs on "us" while attacking an important home fort of the multi-ers.
So I don't want any rule that prevents that either.

Also Also, the spam seems to have stopped when the Awesomia Event battles finished :roll:
 
Last edited:

Smiggy28

Member
When it comes down to it, if multies are destroying the game so much and the dev's care about the game then they'd implement game rules that combat or prevent multies from being dug in the first place! But they haven't, so digging a multi is basically encouraged by the dev's. if they cared they could easily make so players/towns/alliances can only dig once a day, or as I stated earlier in this thread, make it so no one can dig within a chosen hour of another dig. that in my opinion is the only way that multies will be combatted.

So Goober, for all your good intentions which I really do appreciate nothing will change IMO.
 

Thanatoss

Well-Known Member
Things needed to improve fort fights:
1) more players more towns more alliances (partially solved by multies)
2) more and better rewards and new buffs
3) less op sets less useless sets more set variety not just stronger sets
4) change battle formula and maybe add more skills to count for ffs

And some bonus problems:
1) too many (new) worlds
2) too many pay2win things
3) too many click or "luck" events
4) no phone app

Anything that don't change any of the above is bs and will just slow down the death of this game. This discussion is a disgrace and a disappointment to this game called "the west". Would we be having this discussion 6-7 years ago? No!
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Things needed to improve fort fights:
1) more players more towns more alliances (partially solved by multies)
2) more and better rewards and new buffs
3) less op sets less useless sets more set variety not just stronger sets
4) change battle formula and maybe add more skills to count for ffs

And some bonus problems:
1) too many (new) worlds
2) too many pay2win things
3) too many click or "luck" events
4) no phone app

Anything that don't change any of the above is bs and will just slow down the death of this game. This discussion is a disgrace and a disappointment to this game called "the west". Would we be having this discussion 6-7 years ago? No!

Nice summary of required changes. For some of the proposals for the FF improvements, Goober mentioned that these can't be done by team and instead they would require the devs work. I agree, the real question is where are the developers and why they didn't do anything to address the problems with FF balance, rewards system and multies? The last FF changes were almost 2y ago and there are no news when we will get some improvements (if ever).
 
Top