What is a Multi vs a Battle?

1Big Chief

Well-Known Member
Previous thread closed by going "off-topic".. so here is The correct one.. stay on-topic.. ALL
http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=45829&page=8

As Brought Up by Futurama
Now, look at it the other day. Say the smaller alliance has 150 active members and the enemy alliance has 300 (these numbers are not meant to be accurate, just an example). Both these numbers are enough to max any size of fort on its own. However, when the smaller alliance chooses to use multi battles, they're giving the larger alliance the chance to utilise their number advantage. Say you attack two mediums and two smalls. Out of the four battles, the alliance with 300 active fort battlers would have the numbers to max all four of these battles, while your alliance of 150 members could only max two of them at best (a medium and a small, or two smalls with members left over for the remaining two battles). A more realistic scenario is that the smaller alliance would have a low attendance at all battles, or concentrate on one battle, either way would not have an effect due to the big alliance's numbers covering each fort adequately, not to mention moving numbers to one fort when they see the majority of the enemy congregating there. I know it's not realistic to expect 300 active fort fighters, but this is just an example and its principle still comes in to play; the bigger alliance may not be able to max all forts but it will be able to get more fighters at each one.

What do you think gives you a better chance of a victory? 100 vs 84 in a medium, or 50 vs 84 and 20 vs 42 in a medium/small multi?

Then you can take into consideration that the larger alliance is, in theory, more capable of launching multi battles of greater magnitude. So if they choose to retaliate the numbers would end up along the lines of 15 vs 42 at each of the big alliance's defences and then 50 vs 30 at the big alliance's attack. Wow, now the small alliances has lost two attacks and a defence just because they had in their heads that it would be easier to attack two forts rather than one when they don't have the numbers to fill them both, than have an even chance of taking a fort in a one on one battle.
Futurama.. finally.. someone who is thinking on the same lines as me.. finally.. but lets just turn it around a little.

Hypothetically.. (others... look up the word if needed)
Lets say.. (as I've been shouting on the roof tops).. lets say that in a million to 1

I get an army to attack an alliance.. not a fort.. but an alliance in general (but dealt with in fort battles)
But my army is 400 people and yours is 200.. now I attack a fort.. and only 140 of us (say a large fort) are allowed in.. tell me..
..must the other warriors sit on the hill and watch while their alliance fights.. or will it be acceptable that they can move on to the next fort.. and fill that one too

Ok.. but now you don't have the numbers to fill that fort.. maybe you can get about 40 more defenders
But because the odds are against you.. this might/will be construed as a multi
What is so wrong with having 3 attacks (FILLED ATTACKS).. its not the attackers problem if the enemy can't defend it.. its the defenders problem.. not true ?

Now.. I have asked numerous people this question.. but NEVER get a decent answer.. cause they steer off course again & again

So Futurama.. are you reasonable enough to give a decent answer to a valid question
You yourself brought it up.. as the attacker.. now answer it as the defender
Others are welcome to answer.. but please keep the thread ON TOPIC - and part of the Topic... is answer the question


Please note ALL (with opinion) .. I am not for multi's.. (but seriously was).. as I found out when Jakkals went Bos.. how tiring it can be .. and for little reward
BUT.. for the life of me.. I can't understand why I can't attack more forts at the same time.. and filling them.. (strictly filling them).. but not allowed to do so..
.. because the enemy MIGHT not match us and thus just because TW+v2 say so
As much as I hate the idea of worthless multi's.. I fear there is no other option.. if we play by your rules (TW+v2)

Can someone.. decently.. answer the question.. and that is "Is this a legitimate battle.. or a wasteful Multi ?"

Thank you ;)
 
Last edited:

JLMEMT

Member
For one, he is not taking the idea of tactics into account. This is what can help swing a multi into the direction of a smaller group.

If there are two or three attacks declared across the map in a fairly small time frame it makes the defenders pick which battle they want to attend. If they cannot fill them all the attackers may gain an advantage at one or more of them.
 

1Big Chief

Well-Known Member
Spamming !! (Off Topic) + (Immature)

But you.. Mr Arrogant.. nothing changes.. and you still prove everything people say about you & your alliance .. very sad indeed

Simply answer the question please.. and prove you show no signs of cowards :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

defender7

Well-Known Member
Can someone.. decently.. answer the question.. and that is "Is this a legitimate battle.. or a wasteful Multi ?"

Thank you ;)
All the multi's lately have been wasteful. A legitimate battle lasts more than 3 rounds or even 15 rounds.
As for hypothetical fantasy, I think you are overestimating your odds at a one in a million chance of fielding 400.
It's zero.
The question you should ask yourself is "can I hope to fill the ranks for even a small fort attack".
Do you really think more people are going to come to multis when all they do is get shot to pieces in a few rounds with an understrength force?
:no:
 

1Big Chief

Well-Known Member
Much appreciated answer

All the multi's lately have been wasteful. A legitimate battle lasts more than 3 rounds or even 15 rounds.
As for hypothetical fantasy, I think you are overestimating your odds at a one in a million chance of fielding 400.
It's zero.
The question you should ask yourself is "can I hope to fill the ranks for even a small fort attack".
Do you really think more people are going to come to multis when all they do is get shot to pieces in a few rounds with an understrength force?
:no:
Thank you very much for answering the question to a degree.. unlike childish others..

But if it were possible.. would it be construed as a multi.. though in theory.. you as the defenders get out-numbered .. but dictate terms that attackers should keep half the battalion behind ?
We all know it is highly unlikely this will happen (soon) .. as v2 is well organized & their foes are not.. as all can see
All I am asking.. is it reasonable that they CRY FOUL (multi) should 2 or 3 FILLED ATTACK forces be achieved.. and they can't defend without sufficient numbers ?

Again.. I don't want waste-less multi's either.. as they have no integrity or success
But will not accept being dictated to by another alliance because it suits their game
 

tennismaster07

Since we're playing make-believe today, Joe, here's one for you. Let's make believe that V2 has taken over every Fort in W1. It's possible. We could do it if we really set our minds to it. But does that sound like a very fun World to play in? No, it doesn't. It would kill the World just like these stupid multis are killing people's desire to participate in fort fights. On ALL sides of the battlelines. One day you'll come to the realization that it's not about how many Forts you have. It's about the battles themselves. Forts change hands all the time. No matter how big or small an alliance is, you always win some and you always lose some. But nobody likes wasting their time to attend a fight that ends up being a 50v3 exercise in idiocy. It's a waste of time and it's a waste of resources. It does nothing to enhance the game. It's simply not fun. So what if you win one of our Forts in a multi. We're going to take it right back from you. In the long run, what have you won? Nothing but the scorn and disrespect of the W1 community.
 

mstngcobra

Thank you very much for answering the question to a degree.. unlike childish others..

But if it were possible.. would it be construed as a multi.. though in theory.. you as the defenders get out-numbered .. but dictate terms that attackers should keep half the battalion behind ?
We all know it is highly unlikely this will happen (soon) .. as v2 is well organized & their foes are not.. as all can see
All I am asking.. is it reasonable that they CRY FOUL (multi) should 2 or 3 FILLED ATTACK forces be achieved.. and they can't defend without sufficient numbers ?
Ok - you seem to be serious about this, so i will attempt to answer your question. This is my personal opinion - not trying to upset anyone, just calling it like i see it.

If you could fill 2 or more forts, and if both/all the battles were 'real' then in a sense no, it would not be a multi. However, i seriously doubt ANY alliance's ability to call, fill, and have more than 1 'real' attack in a short period of time (ie: 6 hrs, or less - prob 8 hrs or less for W1 with no warping). Keeping in mind that while offliners are useful, the success of an attack largely depends on onliners. It is very, very unlikely to fill more than 1 fort w/ enough onliners to successfully win a battle. I play on W11, and am in one of the top Fort Fighting towns on .net server, and our alliance cannot successfully fill more than 1 attack, and have 'real' battles. :no:

The sole purpose (imho) of digging more than 1 enemy fort within a short time is to weaken the defenders, and stretch them thin between forts. I see this often in alliances that are interested in winning forts at any cost. If winning forts is your main goal then that's fine. Everyone has the right to play the game as they see fit. If your interest is in good battles, then it is against your best interest to dig more than 1 enemy fort within a short period of time. Personally i like good battles - battles that last more than 10-15 rounds. ;)

So - in brief, yes i believe it would be a multi because that would be the intent of digging more than 1 enemy fort. There is no way (imho) that any alliance - esp on am older world like W1 - would stand a chance of having 200+ onliners, and being able to fill 2+ forts w/ any real success. :)
 

TheHorseLady

Active Member
Multls have been explained to you a number of times. Derek also said that when you get your army of 400 he would turn over all of the forts to you. YOU don't have enough of an army to attack a small fort. You do more talking about fort battles than you do attending them. Your alliance has a grand total of 478 battles attended We have a single player that dwarfs that moshuroshu-593. You don't know anything about this world you have 40 battles to your credit. Your army of 400 is in your mind you will never have an army or 400 fort fighters. Lokiju never had an army of 400 and you are no where near the leader he was. Why don't you learn the game before you preach how it is suppose to be played.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lord Regal

The West Team
Sheriff
[box=red]Mod Insert: Any more spam or derailing attempts on this thread will be given an infraction. Spoilers are not allowed anywhere other than the section designated for spoilers. This is the last warning for this thread, as there have now been four separate people attempting to derail the thread.[/box]
 
Last edited:

Jakkals

Banned
Ok about the numbers. Let me clarify this for you Mister Joe :censored: *

Ok there is 5200 players in the world. That is players that didn't quit within the first few days of joining. Look at ranking if you dont believe me. Now we have 650 of that 5200 players that is a mere 12.5%. So what I understand is that you say that the small alliances needs multis to attack us. That is not so. The opposite is true since if you all agree to no multis you suddenly have +- 400(hypothetical) extra experienced fighters on your side. You have the numbers now but the wrong numbers. By that i mean the players that fight on your side dont match our players man to man. Rather fix this by dropping multis and getting stronger players like Desi behind you . That is if you and hilton and that furry creature is able to do this still which I seriously doubt.

Ok only read the futurama bit let me break the numbers further down for you of 10 players say 4 is inactive(number is actually higher and 3 dont participate in fort battles so that is 70% of any alliance wont participate in battles . In an alliance with 650 that would give you a optimistic case scenario of 195 active players that fight in forts. In your alliance it would give you 36 players same in pandora box and about 72 players in nba. If you dont believe me go through all of your previous battles and do a bit of accounting. So at most any alliance have wait for it :whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle: (please create drum roll smilie) enough players for <getting out :sombrero: of breath(perhaps smilie with idea bulb above would also be great/ what can i say i am a smilie freak> 1 battle per day. (class cheers as teacher hands jakkals a cookie :abe: )

* since his surname is considered a curseword in my language which he shares.
 
Last edited:

Jesse James

[box=red]Mod Insert: Any more spam or derailing attempts on this thread will be given an infraction. Spoilers are not allowed anywhere other than the section designated for spoilers. This is the last warning for this thread, as there have now been four separate people attempting to derail the thread.[/box]
I don't see how this thread is relevant to w1.It should be moved to Saloon forum.Here opening poster creates a hypothetical scenario which is nothing like w1 and asks one person's opinion about it.I believe we have private message system for that sort of discussion.Even if he asks everyone's opinion it will still fall under general game discussion and thus should be moved to Saloon forum.

If you keep this topic here people will keep posting in the context of w1 and this topic will never achieve its goal,if it has any.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1Big Chief

Well-Known Member
Since we're playing make-believe today, Joe, here's one for you. Let's make believe that V2 has taken over every Fort in W1. It's possible. We could do it if we really set our minds to it. But does that sound like a very fun World to play in? No, it doesn't. It would kill the World just like these stupid multis are killing people's desire to participate in fort fights. On ALL sides of the battlelines. One day you'll come to the realization that it's not about how many Forts you have. It's about the battles themselves. Forts change hands all the time. No matter how big or small an alliance is, you always win some and you always lose some. But nobody likes wasting their time to attend a fight that ends up being a 50v3 exercise in idiocy. It's a waste of time and it's a waste of resources. It does nothing to enhance the game. It's simply not fun. So what if you win one of our Forts in a multi. We're going to take it right back from you. In the long run, what have you won? Nothing but the scorn and disrespect of the W1 community.
I am trying my best to give you a decent challenge.. regardless of how futile it might seem at this stage
But I will do everything I can to avoid useless Multi's... but a challenge you will get ;)
Ok - you seem to be serious about this, so i will attempt to answer your question. This is my personal opinion - not trying to upset anyone, just calling it like i see it.

If you could fill 2 or more forts, and if both/all the battles were 'real' then in a sense no, it would not be a multi. However, i seriously doubt ANY alliance's ability to call, fill, and have more than 1 'real' attack in a short period of time (ie: 6 hrs, or less - prob 8 hrs or less for W1 with no warping). Keeping in mind that while offliners are useful, the success of an attack largely depends on onliners. It is very, very unlikely to fill more than 1 fort w/ enough onliners to successfully win a battle. I play on W11, and am in one of the top Fort Fighting towns on .net server, and our alliance cannot successfully fill more than 1 attack, and have 'real' battles. :no:

The sole purpose (imho) of digging more than 1 enemy fort within a short time is to weaken the defenders, and stretch them thin between forts. I see this often in alliances that are interested in winning forts at any cost. If winning forts is your main goal then that's fine. Everyone has the right to play the game as they see fit. If your interest is in good battles, then it is against your best interest to dig more than 1 enemy fort within a short period of time. Personally i like good battles - battles that last more than 10-15 rounds. ;)

So - in brief, yes i believe it would be a multi because that would be the intent of digging more than 1 enemy fort. There is no way (imho) that any alliance - esp on am older world like W1 - would stand a chance of having 200+ onliners, and being able to fill 2+ forts w/ any real success. :)
Yes.. I am serious.. otherwise I wouldn't care about these posts.. and just multi away like no tomorrow
The 1st (green) part I agree with you.. 2nd (blue) part.. but not if it is a full legit battle ... as stated in part 1 ;)

Thank you for some clarity from the 2 of you.. much appreciated ;)
 

bigboydanny

Ok about the numbers. Let me clarify this for you Mister Joe :censored: *

Ok there is 5200 players in the world. That is players that didn't quit within the first few days of joining. Look at ranking if you dont believe me. Now we have 650 of that 5200 players that is a mere 12.5%. So what I understand is that you say that the small alliances needs multis to attack us. That is not so. The opposite is true since if you all agree to no multis you suddenly have +- 400(hypothetical) extra experienced fighters on your side. You have the numbers now but the wrong numbers. By that i mean the players that fight on your side dont match our players man to man. Rather fix this by dropping multis and getting stronger players like Desi behind you . That is if you and hilton and that furry creature is able to do this still which I seriously doubt.

Ok only read the futurama bit let me break the numbers further down for you of 10 players say 4 is inactive(number is actually higher and 3 dont participate in fort battles so that is 70% of any alliance wont participate in battles . In an alliance with 650 that would give you a optimistic case scenario of 195 active players that fight in forts. In your alliance it would give you 36 players same in pandora box and about 72 players in nba. If you dont believe me go through all of your previous battles and do a bit of accounting. So at most any alliance have wait for it :whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle: (please create drum roll smilie) enough players for <getting out :sombrero: of breath(perhaps smilie with idea bulb above would also be great/ what can i say i am a smilie freak> 1 battle per day. (class cheers as teacher hands jakkals a cookie :abe: )

* since his surname is considered a curseword in my language which he shares.

if we have 2 player for each guy u have strength doesnt matter numbers will take the win alamo for e.g they fought better but still lost
 

bigboydanny

no need to try to ban anyone just a game and servers are in english so ur language cant really apply in this game its not his fault he didnt mean or know that just fight ur war like men
 

Jakkals

Banned
ok no it does matter its an offensive name and it was expressly chosen to offend. I as a speaker of my language take offense as it portrays all of us in a negative light . I dont care if he is banned or not thats for the mods to decide. In short he changed the jou to joe which means your moer in old dutch means mother but in our language it translates to your mother's :censored: PLEASE FORCE HIM TO CHANGE IT IM OFFENDED :mad: if nobody else is fine.

Wikipedia :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_African_slang_words

what about joeNOOB since you all seem to come from the noobian galaxy :);):D.
 
Last edited:

1Big Chief

Well-Known Member
The Epilogue

no need to try to ban anyone just a game and servers are in english so ur language cant really apply in this game its not his fault he didnt mean or know that just fight ur war like men
Thanks bigboydanny.. but there is no need to defend me.. but appreciated anyway
What my fellow african Jaks
says is quite true.. since he went to great lengths to look it up.. so I also went and read it... and seems worse than I thought myself
It doesn't sound nice at all.. and even though I spelt it differently.. it was basically meaning the same thing.. so he was welcome to complain ..
.. but feeling offended.. that was a joke though

BUT.. we all know what was really going on.. as in this very post.. TW+v22.. they were being proven that my method of multiple attacks on them.. WAS NOT Multi's !!
And they also didn't like the idea of possibly been given infractions for trying to derail the thread at hand :rolleyes:
But back to the main one... Their own members admitted this in this very post.. one stating..

If you could fill 2 or more forts, and if both/all the battles were 'real' then in a sense no, it would not be a multi.
I don't know who or why someone in their ranks thought that this question was an issue.. enough to have the discussions on their forums at great length.. but I know that they used Jaks knowledge of the meaning of my name to get me banned

But again.. no hard feelings.. cause I entered this West World just to play a joke on ConnorBrian & WWPA.. by using that name.. and in the process had fun having them think I was a spy. He had a hunch it was me.. cause I once on a while use it as a joke amongst my closest friends & family. As bad as it does sound.. it is not ALWAYS as bad as uptight... and prim & proper Jaks says.

Again.. as I have really gotten into the game, 2nd time round, I really got to enjoy it this time.. and always knew my name was a problem & that the novelty of the joke had worn off long ago.. but I did expect to be asked to change it .. before actually being banned for it... thus maybe should have approached the Mods to change it
When I started playing Beta.. I started with the name 1Big Chief.. as it was what I liked.. so much that I put an Indian as my town image.. in world 1.. as all know this

..and this is where I come along and say a BIG Thank You to Jaks
& TW+v22.. for helping me in this transition.. which was long overdue.. Thanks china ;)
So much so.. that I now know that I'm a thorn in their side.. and that they went to such lengths to get rid of me.. and my style of play.. that I am on the right path
I also want to tell you.. you have achieved nothing more than making our alliances stronger.. but hey.. thats a good thing.. right ?

So TW+v22.. lets have fun.. I won't rule out Attacking you in multi's.. as I don't own the alliance.. I just said how I would like to attack you at great length.. and at this stage.. by outnumbering you... but as you know.. I didn't have the numbers... and won't happen for a long time.. but be assured... it is coming.. :p

I am not going anywhere.. so all I can say is prepare yourself.. because I will be.. GAME ON !! ..
No Peace Pipe for You Guys... from me or our alliance in the making
 
Last edited:

Derek1982

Well-Known Member
A little less talk and a little more action and you may actually have a chance of achieving something Chief ;)

Battle For Mercy Me

61 fighters have attacked the Fort.
52 defenders defended.
27 attackers fell.
52 defenders fell.

Did not see you there Chief ;)
 

The Pro100

Well-Known Member
Somehow I have lost the will to join fort battles lately
Just queue up jobs and watch if any Tank-Busters are nearby >.<
 

Derek1982

Well-Known Member
The worst thing is Erica, I know there are enough folk from the joint towns that make up your circle - if only half of them would get active again there could be some excellent battles to be had.
 

Jakkals

Banned
A little less talk and a little more action and you may actually have a chance of achieving something Chief ;)

Battle For Mercy Me

61 fighters have attacked the Fort.
52 defenders defended.
27 attackers fell.
52 defenders fell.

Did not see you there Chief ;)

Actually he was there he had changed his name by that time. Nobody put me up to anything 1Big Chief. We have publically stated that we are against multis. Whatever ppl you quoted from us out of context dont change our OFFICIAL POLICY. About your name this isnt the site for such names. I have chosen weird names myself at "other sites" as a joke to to be told that :censored::censored::censored::censored: is already taken. But sites like the west is also heavily populated by children and you know we and they(players from our country ) have nowhere else to go but the english site. My english is 100% better than my dutch. So I have no problem in reporting offensive name and keeping my chat within the rules. After all when you get permanently banned you may fuzz and moan all you like at home but your fun is over period. Well as to your alliance "enforcing the strength good "we actually want to encourage strong competition not dissuade it. But you wont change the players opinion in your former "camp" that is against multis. For a good strategist/player/leader it should be obvious that the multi kite will never fly and you might as well can it. After all we dont say you cant go and explore other worlds and multi with free abandon we only say leave multis out of WORLD 1. 2 Battles a day is very possible still under the 8 hour rule so try and full those 2 first and take a fort straight up before selling your whole alliance short by not even trying. As to owning all forts we still need 12 large forts, 8 mediums and 16 small forts so I personally is not worried about a dead world at this stage. Personally I am now tired of this topic and wont respond to it again.