World killing/Ego driven tactics

[1 Bad Wolf]

edit. Those that aren't being controlled do have their own say. Those that are being controlled have to do as they are told.

 

[JWillow]

@sanidh

To be honest, it looks like you found out exactly what new worlds are. You clearly have picked up on what player motivation is into joining those worlds. Go for the wins and when they lose or win all the time and get tired of no opposition, wait for the new world to start all over again.

New world players have zero incentive to work on keeping battles going, when times get tough they get out and build their churches. Not saying there are not some who want a different outcome but they are few and far between.

I would say, most players at this point go into new worlds with knowledge it is already dead. So best advice, just put enough work that you are willing to throw away in 6 months.

Montana was the only questionable world, as it is the first after level cap change, and it is clear that even a leveling playing field means little.

Good luck in the new world if you choose to bother with it.

 

[Bob Baumeister]

To be honest, it looks like you found out exactly what new worlds are. You clearly have picked up on what player motivation is into joining those worlds.

To be fair starting this thread by stating "I wont take names or create drama" and then in the same post suggest names and ask for bans is not the best way to have a solution oriented or egoless discussion.
It's no big wonder that this emidiately became a partisan debate.

Regarding your old worlds vs new worlds claim... Aren't we just have old to newer world migrations? I doubt it's a stretch to say that most old worlds have no consistant, satisfying ffs either (or none at all).

 

[Bob Baumeister]

I think the general problem is that ffs have some cooperative gameplay component that requires both sides to partly work together. Which is a bit counterintuitive because you also have to "fight" against each other.
But it's not like 10 years ago when both sides could easily fill their side and cherry pick who gets a rank.

The fewer people play, the easier it is to get unbalanced fights and the more important (and harder) it is to agree on some basics.
I currently play on a german world and it's essentially the same: more and more unbalanced fights -> people lose interest -> less frequent and even more unbalanced fights -> etc.
Only difference is it's with less drama and accusations.

 

[roland jacobs]

The fewer people play, the easier it is to get unbalanced fights and the more important (and harder) it is to agree on some basics.

And when new worlds are opened every year, it further drains the previous worlds into a wasteland. There's no way I'm starting a new char on a new world for it to end up in a year just in the same place I am, and with fewer gear/xp/etc.

 

[Bob Baumeister]

You are fighting against windmills here.

And we are getting off-topic^^

 

[Poker Alice]

I think the general problem is that ffs have some cooperative gameplay component that requires both sides to partly work together. Which is a bit counterintuitive because you also have to "fight" against each other.
But it's not like 10 years ago when both sides could easily fill their side and cherry pick who gets a rank.

The fewer people play, the easier it is to get unbalanced fights and the more important (and harder) it is to agree on some basics.
I currently play on a german world and it's essentially the same: more and more unbalanced fights -> people lose interest -> less frequent and even more unbalanced fights -> etc.
Only difference is it's with less drama and accusations.

Could a territorial agreement be honored? Let the top two leaders draw an imaginary line on the map. On each side agree that forts within a region belong to the two strongest alliances who have made an agreement not to attack each other. It would allow for weaker alliances to challenge. However making rules of engagement (like the spamming rule) only inhibit weaker town/alliances from attacking the over powering ones? I suppose for the sake of consistent battles there could be a virtual no mans land between the two territories where the strongest could push each others boundaries?

Don't think I am fully understanding the complex issues around fort balancing however it seems to me that drama and accusations are very much a part of it?

 

[Oddersfield]

Good point, these players hold others hostage and force others to play a certain way just as much as implementing a rule stopping them would.

Prime time is always contested as these are multi national worlds. And people will want to dig at different times or dig different sized forts for many many reasons. With good or bad intentions.

Honestly on Arizona we're at a complete standstill, no one wants to swap sides but one side is simply much weaker. While I'd hate to be forced to play any way other than my own way, an all powerfull 3rd party forcing balance if none can be found untill things naturally settles would honestly be welcome and would without a doubt improve the world & activity.

Though both options suck and situation should never be this bad, It's only like this for most worlds because there's too few players, incentives are bad and battles themselves aren't well optimised. Activity these days is almost purely drama driven because the main game is so desperately in need of fixes, balances & updates, so you can't be shocked when drama becomes a problem.

That is the situation on most worlds and has been for a long time. It is the rule rather than the exception.

On AZ your alliance in general and you as one of the main protagonists compounded the problem by repeatedly dueling people who were fort fighting with you, so they switched sides. You made your own side weaker than it would have been through your own actions.

 

[darthmaul99174]

That is the situation on most worlds and has been for a long time. It is the rule rather than the exception.

On AZ your alliance in general and you as one of the main protagonists compounded the problem by repeatedly dueling people who were fort fighting with you, so they switched sides. You made your own side weaker than it would have been through your own actions.

I have a script that warns me before I duel those that join on my side, never once did I duel my allies and regardless the issue on AZ is far bigger than your alliance changing sides.

At the time attacking was very difficult for both sides and even when your alliance left AR would still lose attacking us, so they just didn't attack. We lost many of our OWN members because after 6 months of attacking and losing and not getting any defense battles, they didn't want to play anymore... we lost enough of our own members that we were weak enough to be beaten so AR started attacking & from there 2 servers migrated to arizona, and more and more joined the stronger side because, who wants to lose? now the gap is too big to be fixed easily.

Ignoring the fact that 3 alliances & TWO NEW SERVERS team up against 1 alliance regularly for a couple years now untill they own all forts and no battles are dug from either side because it's not fun is clearly dumb. Everyone has a choice and people like easy wins so here we are. Although I understand for a few people like you oddders personally refuse to be on any side that has me there (I respect that I dont like you either) this is not the majority and most really don't care they just want to win.

Eitherway I'm sure you still disagree and I respect that, you've said your peace and I've said mine lets leave it there and not turn this into our thread to argue