protest against multis

DeletedUser

i know i am not alone in this, although many still seem to think it is a good tactic.

initiating multibattles sucks imho. even if you go to the proper one and not the decoy, more often than not its a crappy battle and not much for xp

way i see it, if you have to resort to multis to take a fort then you need more participation within your alliance because you dont have enough faith in your team.

and if you do take a fort(s) this way, what makes a person think that the losing side cant take it back, unless when they try you just continue with retaliation attacks?

my (personal) decision, i am not bothering with multi battles anymore. if i see that it is what it is, i guess im doing jobs that day

for me the straw that broke the camels back was this past weekend. golden nugget initiated 3 battles against wolf canyon/creek and after running around to all three, i think there still were only 20 attackers tops at any of the forts.

and on briscoe(yeah i know...wrong forum but goes with the point) cowboy-BP initiated 8 yes 8 battles within 45 minutes of each other.

i say enough is enough. maybe try recruiting for a battle so there are more onliners than offliners. that always makes a difference

apologies for the rant, ill stop now
 

DeletedUser

Unlike counters... Multiattacks suck, plain and simple.
There is only one way to stop 'em. If this continues I'll personally launch a multi on ALL forts the certain town owns on this world. And next day? Another multi, but not on their forts, but on their allies' forts. Etc, each day. I hope you'll manage to keep all your allies. With a bit of luck that will be - fortless allies.
Oh, yes, I have more money on myself than your whole multiattackloving town has in case you think I can't launch more multies than you.
 

DeletedUser22575

JoxerTM said:
Unlike counters... Multiattacks suck, plain and simple.
There is only one way to stop 'em. If this continues I'll personally launch a multi on ALL forts the certain town owns on this world. And next day? Another multi, but not on their forts, but on their allies' forts. Etc, each day. I hope you'll manage to keep all your allies. With a bit of luck that will be - fortless allies.
Oh, yes, I have more money on myself than your whole multiattackloving town has in case you think I can't launch more multies than you.
Click to expand...


While I don't like multis they are a viable tactic to spread out the other sides forces and to take a fort here and there.

Generally I have seen them used by smaller alliances to try and take forts from larger alliances.

And generally the only towns/alliances I see complaining about them are the larger alliances who seem to feel snubbed by the audacity of anyone trying anything to them by the smaller towns/alliances.

Meantime they seem to think it fine for them to slowly munch up the forts of the smaller side utilizing their larger/superior alliance size because they often don't have to resort to the use of multis to take them

But I will agree that someplace in all of those multis should be an attempt to take a fort, not just a bunch of harassment attacks/waste of time for the players.

Just a different tactic depending on your position in life, thats all.

And Joxer spend that money, once again you have over rated your ability to actually effect anything with anyones alliances...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Both multi's and counters are lame, they ruin the fun of fort battles. If you need to split their forces up by multi-declaring out you shouldn't be trying to take forts at all. I refused to go to Golden Nugget's multi declaring on the Wolf forts and I will keep refusing to go to multi's, unless my town is under attack by multi's ofcourse, then I'll help defend.

I seriously doubt a big and good team like the Unhinged group needs multi's too ;)
 

DeletedUser22575

Scareless said:
Both multi's and counters are lame, they ruin the fun of fort battles. If you need to split their forces up by multi-declaring out you shouldn't be trying to take forts at all. I refused to go to Golden Nugget's multi declaring on the Wolf forts and I will keep refusing to go to multi's, unless my town is under attack by multi's ofcourse, then I'll help defend.

I seriously doubt a big and good team like the Unhinged group needs multi's too ;)
Click to expand...

Once again we have this elitism attitude of if you don't belong to a large top alliance you don't deserve to have a fort...that they are not for the smaller players and towns.
 

DeletedUser

It's not that, small alliances or towns do deserve to have a fort, but acquiring them by multi battles imo is the wrong way to do it. Small forts require 50 people, I'm sure a pretty small town with a few allies can fill such a battle, if they can't how are they planning to keep the fort?

But I'll agree that small towns declaring multi's annoy me way less as big alliances doing multi's.
 

DeletedUser22575

Scareless said:
It's not that, small alliances or towns do deserve to have a fort, but acquiring them by multi battles imo is the wrong way to do it. Small forts require 50 people, I'm sure a pretty small town with a few allies can fill such a battle, if they can't how are they planning to keep the fort?

But I'll agree that small towns declaring multi's annoy me way less as big alliances doing multi's.
Click to expand...


Any way that gets you a fort within the rules is the right way.
 

DeletedUser

-you must spread some more reputation before giving it to T J Tuttle again-

I understand it when people say they don't like aspects of the game with a view to improvements being put into future versions, but what never ceases to amaze me is that some people have the nerve to condemn other players perfectly legal strategies.

Whether it be fort-fights, duelling builders, camping, nuggets or whatever, the rules are the same for everybody and within them anyone can play anyhow they like. It's just arrogance to think that people shouldn't play a certain way because it annoys YOU.:)
 

DeletedUser

well a perfectly legal strategy then did nothing but backfire in many cases. the multis that golden nugget did to try and take a fort "because they are too small to take one head on" were a joke.

all had more defenders, and not only was it a wasted effort, but they didnt have enough plyers show up in all 3 forts to fill one small fort attack force. waste their town money thats fine.

and what may be a tactic by smaller towns to take a fort, how are they going to hold it if they have no choice but to initiate multi attacks to confuse the opponent.

honestly, you cant tell me you arent chapped going into a fort battle and coming out with like 49 xp.
 

DeletedUser26406

Also spys suck
Anyone who runs a spy needs too rethink it, really what do you even get out of one?
 

DeletedUser

ratatatPat said:
..........waste their town money.......

........you cant tell me you arent chapped going into a fort battle and coming out with like 49 xp.
Click to expand...
Maybe it wasn't such a waste after all. That money has to be spent somewhere, so annoying your foes is as good a way as any.

@John Sibley - wrong thread!:huh:
 

DeletedUser

ratatatPat said:
and what may be a tactic by smaller towns to take a fort, how are they going to hold it if they have no choice but to initiate multi attacks to confuse the opponent.
Click to expand...

A town that has never had a fort, does not even have the right to think about what to do if they happen to get one. Beginners should start with small goals.
Taking the fort comes first, figuring out how to defend it comes next. Holding a fort for even a second would be a great success to us.
 

DeletedUser

Eli Makepeace said:
-you must spread some more reputation before giving it to T J Tuttle again-

I understand it when people say they don't like aspects of the game with a view to improvements being put into future versions, but what never ceases to amaze me is that some people have the nerve to condemn other players perfectly legal strategies.

Whether it be fort-fights, duelling builders, camping, nuggets or whatever, the rules are the same for everybody and within them anyone can play anyhow they like. It's just arrogance to think that people shouldn't play a certain way because it annoys YOU.:)
Click to expand...

Its perfectly legal indeed, but the point is that it spoils the fun of fort battles, what if your town is trying to take a fort and every time you declare you get counter attacked.. both sides end up with no gain.
Multi's are just stupid when defending cos you don't know where to go, either you prioritise one defence and probably lose a fort out of the two(or more), or either you try fill both defences and both defences are weakened, don't have enough onliners etc.

Of course people can play how they like to, but I think you need to try give it a shot in a way that makes it nice for both sides. I like defending forts of my alliance in a good fight, but I enjoy defending them a lot less when they got multi'd or countered ;)
 

DeletedUser

exactly. way nicer to have the battle start and see both sides full, then 4 battles massively outnumbered on one side and then a small fort with a full attack or something similar
 

DeletedUser

I take the point of the last two posts, and if this was a co-operative game I would totally agree. However, there is an element of competition, especially in fort-fights, and what is a pain to one player can give pleasure to another.
An alliance with little fort-fighting ability and lots of cash can call a whole load of fort fights knowing that the defenders may have a headache determining which are fakes and run themselves ragged for, in the end, very few points. A kind of sadistic pleasure, but a pleasure nevertheless for some players. Until everyone agrees what makes an 'enjoyable' game I say let each play the way they want without some kind of morality trip being put on them (cf. 'duelling builders' hehe).
 

DeletedUser

Fair enough Eli, but I hope you do agree that big alliances doing multi is not something that should happen :)
 

DeletedUser

Wonderful series of battles tomorrow, Winchester, Grave Times's sister town declares on a NU fort, an hour and a half later a fort that Grave Times got share in gets declared on and four minutes later another one they own is declared on.

A multi-counter? That's new :blink: :p
 

DeletedUser

i dont believe that they are counters. too me this looks like 2 alliances looking to take advantage of grave times possibly being elsewhere.

or if they are counters, nobody in NU was approached or approached anyone to do so, lot of running around tho
 

DeletedUser

So now declaring on a Grave Times fort 1h30 after their sister town declared on a fort isn't countering? :unsure:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top