Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member

Winners attract winners, nugget munchers attract nugget munchers and super alliances naturally form. Worse, they end up dominating a world and taking all the forts. The result is the world dies and players quit.

The game is full of alliances who insist on domination. They claim all they want is "good battles" but what they want is domination.

I quit the game when the old people turned w12 into a domination server and now that I have returned, it appears to have gotten worse.


1) No alliance can own more than 25% of each fort size. If they own 25% of any size fort, then they can no longer dig that size.

2) No alliance can be given forts that take the alliance over the 25% limit.

3) Any town who owns forts that would take the alliance over the 25% limit cannot join the alliance until they give up the forts that break the 25% limit.


Why 25%? Cuz 50% would only require the super alliance to break into two which is not enough to force competition. The max forts must remain SMALL. Two alliances can work together, 4 no way. Alliances usually will not work together very well, that is why the leader of the super alliance wants alliances to merge. This proposal is designed to prevent those super merges.

In the rare worlds that DO have balance, breaking the 2 major alliances in 2 can be done without much difficulty. This proposal is designed to force the worlds with one super alliance that owns all the forts into FOUR separate alliances.

With this proposal inno's next super ff nugget set won't destroy fort fighting. Since the nugget munchers will no longer be concentrated, the non-nugget fort fighters will be necessary to fill battles in even the top alliances.


When we got v2.0 and the new map, we all lost all our forts and yes they were built. The new map had many fewer forts (and counties) and none were built. So we have all gone through this before. This change will be no different, except that forts will be built. Inno will have the option to reset the forts to unbuilt if they want to, but it is not necessary.

When inno implements the proposal, the next day no forts will be owned. The super alliances will be forced to disband. Have fun winning them back with the 25% rule in effect!

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
I'm getting ingame responses to this proposal. They worry about Colorado world so I am reposting what I told them...

Colorado was the gold standard of worlds. When I played colorado I was a member of worldusers. The world is led by grownups not children. They will adjust to this new rule easily, just like they adjusted to everything else that came into the game. The rest of the worlds suck especially now the newest world Idaho which has been turned into another domination server.

The problem with ffing has nothing to do with formulas or the type of new gear inno releases. It has to do with player mindset and with many leaders & players ~ that is domination.

We can no longer trust players to balance worlds, Inno must help with a rule change.

Star Trek's Mr Spok ~ The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one


Well-Known Member
Speaking as an alliance leader from Colorado, the new sets most definitely had a role in messing up balance. When the golden animals came out, one side got too many, and we were forced to do a reshuffle. Second time, the union set came out (before that, things were relatively OK) and threw everything out of whack. It's incredibly diffcult to find the right balance, even in the very best of conditions.

I do agree that the other worlds have horrible problems with people refusing to do anything for balance and I'm with you where you say we need to solve this problem. However, if I understand your proposal correctly, it's meant to force people to make 4 alliances in a world rather than just one or two. We once had three different alliances on colorado and it was bad for balance - Alliance A would attack Alliance B's fort, and people from Alliance C split rather unevenly across the sides. Better to have just two alliances where people have only one choice on what side they can join in a battle.

Furthermore, you must consider that there's a loophole - the super alliance which owns all forts can just produce three one man towns, which create three alliances, and then transfer 25% of forts to each one man alliance. Hence, they can keep on dominating.

Some kind of different solution besides limiting fort ownership is needed.

Bad Billy Jack

Well-Known Member
Thankx for your voice Harsha!

The main reason for this proposal is to get players & especially Inno to start to think outside the box to find a solution to super alliances instead of blaming gear & health.

As far as your loophole, yes I tried to consider such abuse. However considering human nature I do not believe such a storing of forts in one man towns or the equivalent would last long. Doing that would also be considered breaking the rules and bannable with the alliance founding town turned into rubble. I consider leaders of super alliances to be destroyers of worlds and zero tolerance applied.

Also, remember this proposal starts with the super alliance not owning ANY forts, so there are no forts to "store". I truly believe just this will help to force the super alliance to break up.

Then there is the option that Inno implements this proposal on a world by world basis. Once a world becomes dominated, Inno blows up the world. Since Colorado is semi-balanced, it could be immune.

Domination is all about fort ownership and that is what must be limited.

Anyone else have a suggestion to address the issue?
Last edited: