Shoot a fort battle noob

DeletedUser14006

Proposal
In every fort battle there is always some noob on your team who hides behind everyone refusing to follow orders in a selfish bid to preserve HP and boost their own stats.

I propose you have the option to target said noob and shoot the crap out of them until they modify their attitude towards the battle.

Current Workaround
Call them out publicly and humiliate them until they realise the error of their noobish ways, unfortunately this has an adverse effect as they usually whine and tell you how awesome they are and you are lucky to have them on your side.

Details
If there is such a noob member amongst your battle then you should be able to double click on their spot turning your arrow blue, this representing that in the next round you will take a shot at them.

Abuse Prevention
None, there will undoubtedly be folk signing up to the enemy side in a direct attempt to kill them from within.

Visual Aids
None.

Summary
Approve this idea and you consent to the merciful killing of noob fort members, remember this is more than just killing them, it is educating them to be less selfish during battles.

Administration
Does this idea meet the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria? Yes/No
Does this idea appear on any of the Previously Suggested Ideas List? Yes/No
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser17143

No. It may be annoying but you can't dictate how individuals choose to play the game. If you have a problem with them, duel them outside of the Fort Battle to show them.
 

DeletedUser25892

Although, I do agree with your purpose here, I think that could be severely improperly used. I suggest an idea that allows generals (only generals) of a defense or attack to utilize the traitor that actually forces them out of the battle completely. I know now most people use traitor to that degree, but they can still get in just not see chat. Also traitor is used if someone may or may not be at battle so they can avoid all the fort chat if they are signed in. Maybe make reservist utilize the same traitor chat functions and make traitor a true blocking of said player from the fort battle.

MM2099
 

Deleted User - 1693871

^ That would be open to even more manipulation though.
 

DeletedUser

How about just don't rank the guy next time? ;)
We all know this idea won't go anywhere.
 

DeletedUser25892

^ That would be open to even more manipulation though.

I am blind to how it would be manipulated. Please share your thoughts on it as I always felt that would be beneficial...maybe not. What do you see as being a problematic manipulation? I hope I am still on topic as this is still discussing whether the current idea fits and whether or not changing the idea to form a better solution.
 

DeletedUser

Is it really that hard to put together a fort fighting dream team? :laugh:
 

DeletedUser34315

No, simply because this will encourage even more infiltrators. In reality, friendly fire-deliberate friendly fire- was extremely rare. This would not add to the game in a positive way at all.
 

DeletedUser22493

So its either getting shoot at the front lines, or at the rear lines. haha..

This seems more like a rant towards hiders than an attempt to solve the problem.
Needless to say, it's never going to be implemented due to the massive abuse potential it has.
 

Deleted User - 1693871

I am blind to how it would be manipulated. Please share your thoughts on it as I always felt that would be beneficial...maybe not. What do you see as being a problematic manipulation? I hope I am still on topic as this is still discussing whether the current idea fits and whether or not changing the idea to form a better solution.

Ranking where a battle is oversubscribed already gives generals control over who gets in or not.

But if you give them the opportunity, as you were suggesting, to give out traitor ranks that PREVENT people taking part in a fort battle altogether, then presumably even in unfilled battles those players would not be able to take part. Meaning it would always be possible to keep out players that weren't part of the 'clique'. I'm sure the developers, if no-one else, would think that was going too far, as game features should be accessible for all.
 

DeletedUser25892

Ranking where a battle is oversubscribed already gives generals control over who gets in or not.

But if you give them the opportunity, as you were suggesting, to give out traitor ranks that PREVENT people taking part in a fort battle altogether, then presumably even in unfilled battles those players would not be able to take part. Meaning it would always be possible to keep out players that weren't part of the 'clique'. I'm sure the developers, if no-one else, would think that was going too far, as game features should be accessible for all.

I see, that makes sense.
 

DeletedUser17143

I have often wished for friendly fire.

I know the game is set in America, but that doesn't mean we need to act like Americans when we take part in combat. Does it?

I always support your ideas, Derek

You've got some brown stuff on your nose.


So its either getting shoot at the front lines, or at the rear lines. haha..

I hate the idea, but I guess those tactics worked during WWII with the Russians and during WWI with the whole "Going over the top" assault plan. So maybe it'll work here? It could be amusing to see the fort battle tactics change from rational strategy to just swarming the fort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Impossible really :unsure:
Stuff the top 50 players on westforts into a town and there you go :p

It could be amusing to see the fort battle tactics change from rational strategy to just swarming the fort.
Flag rushes would be more successful ;)

Personally, I think it's better to educate the noob than shoot the noob. Something to consider. :)
 

DeletedUser

Stuff the top 50 players on westforts into a town and there you go :p

Top 50 is nothing. Anyone with minimal effort can get in the top 50, including some of the worst fort fighters I've ever seen. Plus, believe it or not, there actually ARE hiders in the top 50. :rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser17143

Flag rushes would be more successful ;)

Personally, I think it's better to educate the noob than shoot the noob. Something to consider. :)

I know. Personally I'd rather set my self on fire than have the "Shoot a noob" idea passed.
 
Top