World setup changes

[Roffo Snake]

Obviously, the only way two alliances can hold 24 & 14 forts of 42 forts in one world is by this fake so call we are providing entertainment argument.

I hear comments of it doesn't allow me to do other stuff, to quest and rebuild health in real war you don't allow the enemy to rebuild, this is how two alliances are holding the world hostage with all the forts ownership if the alliances were forced to defend only what they really can own to fight tooth and nails you would see other people willing to step out and fight to keep what they can hold but this current arrangement of providing entertainment is but like living in a twilight zone where you got to go to the overlords and beg for permission to do an activity that is built into the game as a free to use option.

The current system only breeds favouritism, I'm shocked to hear people bragging that they got another player banned because they were digging multi-forts how can you expect to come to a game that has duelling, and a war mechinisim then.

I admit I've missed two of my fights that I'm aware of one was because of personal reason, the most recent I got held up and couldn't make the fight in time, I've even gone and fought on some of the Doc fights as the only person there.

If Inno allowed more cutthroat fighting they themselves would probably benefit from selling more premium health and energy just to keep up with the demand.

I say no limit on the number of forts fought for in the day, reset the charges to what they were before,

You could set a 1/2 hour timer between fights that could help with overlapping.

The so-called forced prime fighting battles if they want to conduct those fine.

But allow people to build their alliances and get the privilege to hold forts by being the alliance willing to fight, I mean really fight, to fight when the other team is disadvantaged by a timezone, to fight battle back to back to just go out there and give it all to fight, not to have to go negotiate with two king alliances to be able to dig an opponent.

To Zuluski you have no right to censor or arrange for the banning of other players to just allow others to hold forts, shame on you for having such manner gameplay.

As for Cooper I'm no toll.

I just want more for this game I've played it for a long time but living in fear of you upsetting the wrong person who has gotten their fun ruined, for that person to get cancelled is really shocking for a game developer to be involved with such practise, has anyone thought of the hurt it is causing to the many players that have gotten banned.

 

[szycopath]

I don't think people are upset with the fact that you or anyone else digs/gets forts
The problem is being obnoxious and not even organizing those battles. You show up (if, at all) with 2-10 attackers at best. How is that even supposed to be fun for anyone, your self included? You talk about cutthroat fights but 2 vs 20 is plain massacre. And then there's 2-5 of these every day.
I would love to see a world with no "2 big alliances" but a bunch of smaller ones, everyone against everyone like it used to be, but the reality of 2010 is (unfortuntely) no reality of 2021. As of now, your digs provide exactly 0 fun value so while the "official" digs might be questioned as well, mainly because of how badly inno ruined FFs in general, you definitely have no groud to use the fun argument, because your battles are even less fun

 

[DeletedUser15368]

Obviously replying to an unmistakable troll is a fool's game, but for the sake of clarity to other readers, the singular reason Colorado has survived the exodus that every other world has gone through is by having ONE big harmonious team of fort fighting lovers who agreed on equal and competitive sides and a schedule and religiously upheld it for many years (along with any possible accommodations for smaller alliances).
You may argue that this is an unnatural state of affairs, I say it's the logical conclusion to a game with no endgame and a finite player-base on a world which is 10 years old and still going stronger than any other.

The word game is important here, this is all meant to be fun, yet Colorado has more spam battles with 0 attackers than real battles in the last month. No wonder they begged support to intervene (and thank you for actually doing something, although I fear it will just lead to a "race" to block the prime time digging slot).

Typically those with the game's longevity at heart would ignore such disruptive players and let them get bored of digging multiple battles every day for no apparent reason, but this has obsessively been going on for years now. I believe, in fact, one of the accounts in question was banned for the disruptions, but sadly was later unbanned by a new CM and went straight back to multi-digs?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and it is the few (3 accounts, in fact) that have embarked on a sustained and obsessive campaign of disruption and disillusionment, at the expense of the quality of fort battles on the only world remaining with a high quality of fort battles.

There have been twelve battles in the last four days on Colorado, and only two of which were actually battles - attended by the community of fort fighters that find sanctuary on Colorado, sanctuary from "cut-throats" and multi-spammers that have lead to the demise of almost every other world on the server.

I think we can safely assume, if we were to vote on this issue of preventing spam-digs on Colorado, that it would be ~140 fort fighters + all of the casuals (who close the fort overview as soon as they see 6 battles and have no clue if any are "real") in favour and 3 sad little trolls against.

If you three trolls just want to own lots of forts then just ask, we only need like 4 to function, you could literally have all the rest as far as I'm concerned (but if you own a fort you must also defend it) and you can feel like you've "won" the world or something, however we all know your only intention is to be disruptive to the playability of the game for as many players as possible... which breaks the T's & C's of the game.

12.3 As User, you will refrain from any action that endangers or disrupts the operation and functionality of the Games and the successful collaboration with other users.

 

[wyindywidualizowany]

Im not exactly sure whats funnier the fact that you guys are trying to discuss with roffo or the way hes trying to make himself look serious and relevant here

 

[DeletedUser15368]

The discussion is not for the benefit of Roffo or Naughty Pumpkin or this Doc Paine guy, but for the ones with the power to prevent their obsessive trolling

 

[Abydos1]

Perhaps the new CM should login to Colorado and see for himself how it is and has been...

 

[wyindywidualizowany]

Except his argument is that hes not trolling and that might force mr new CM to think twice about any further actions

 

[DeletedUser15368]

Except his argument is that hes not trolling and that might force mr new CM to think twice about any further actions

his argument also involved having the right to ruin everyone else's fun.
I don't know much about new Mr CM, but I doubt he's such a fool, or has such a loose understanding of what a game is to buy that.

 

[szycopath]

I'm happy to play down on the trolling. We all know they dig "because we can", we also know they don't care about the forts or the game, but it's fun to fantasize. Even if we do pretend there is a real discussion to be had with Roffo & Co, they still won't have real arguments. Personally, I'm no fan of 2 big sides things either but for now there hasn't been anything better invented, every other world is either dead or dead and sad so this might not be the ideal state of world, but it's surely the one that works best for now.
To clarify: I'm ok playing along pretending trolling isn't trolling, because the argument used here is that the "big guys" (whoever they are) deny the little fish's right to challenge the status quo, but I'm yet to see an actual argument supporting this statement so... I'll just wait till Roffo comes up with something lol

 

[Poker Alice]

Dear players of Colorado,
I will not call it abuse or to much or to little, in general there is no real rules or number for how many fort battles there can be in a world for a day.
But the more there is, of cause, fewer will have the health points to attend them all.

My question is this.

If for any reason management decides to change something in the game
- can those changes be done in the game code only or do changes actually need to involve setting game rules for members to follow even though in the game play it is allowed?

It would be like saying some people don't like being dueled or having goods they are selling to a friend stolen. If in the game play it is possible then why allow other members to decide what is best for the game and then demand rules be applied for other members?

You think you will not call it abuse. Fine.

What got to me after reading this thread is that I saw members names like Naughty Pumpkin being mentioned in the thread but those members are not present to take part in this discussion! And then on top of this they are called a troll (possibly to be banned?) This is not only unfair but could be called bullying?

 

[DeletedUser15368]

"Awww the bad people bullied the griefers by calling them out on their obsessive disruptive behaviour on a thread created to talk about their obsessive destructive behaviour "

~ @Poker Alice, 2021, probably

There's little difference between seeing the names here on the forum verses just logging into Colorado and seeing their names there. Every day. Multiple times. There's also a certain level of infamy involved with these accounts.

There are clearly a lot of emotions and frustrations involved after years of particular players abusing and preventing the collaboration between the fort fighting community, and we are seeing an outpouring of those frustrations because for the first time since Da Twista, something could be done to improve the situation. You just seem to be counter-inclined to anything that would make PvP better in this PvP game...

 

[wyindywidualizowany]

What got to me after reading this thread is that I saw members names like Naughty Pumpkin being mentioned in the thread but those members are not present to take part in this discussion! And then on top of this they are called a troll (possibly to be banned?) This is not only unfair but could be called bullying?

I blame raider for that

 

[Poker Alice]

@lulumcnoob You can call me Poker Alice. I am not 2021, probably! What difference does it make? Can not people whether they have been playing for 120 years or just joined yesterday not have an opinion? Or do they need to be ridiculed by you just because they have not belonging to their "fort fighting community" for the past century?

I can't count the number of times I read garbage on game chat early on in a new world build such as "we will dominate this world".

Are these players the great fort fighters who think they can rule over every other players? That is not a community. It is a group of thugs.

You say you have frustrations. I am sorry that you feel that way in a game. Games are supposed to be fun right? Don't belittle my start date please but show a little respect and I will do the same for you. If not...

 

[DeletedUser15368]

Can not people whether they have been playing for 120 years or just joined yesterday not have an opinion?

They absolutely can, and can I/we not offer a counter opinion based on trying to make the PvP elements of the game the most fun that they can be for the largest circle of users?

Or do they need to be ridiculed by you just because they have not belonging to their "fort fighting community" for the past century?

I believe some of the most active leaders on Colorado are "newer" players, so that would certainly be an irony of hefty magnitude.

I can't count the number of times I read garbage on game chat early on in a world build such as "we will dominate this world".

Sounds terrible, and all those worlds died. I'm glad that's not Colorado.

These must be the great fort fighters who think they can rule it over every other players? That is not a community. It is a group of thugs.

Indeed, short-sighted people with neither an empathetic nor collaborative bone in their body.

I am sorry that you feel that way in a game. Games are supposed to be fun?

Now you are getting the entire point of this thread.

Don't belittle my start date please but show a little respect

I'm not sure from which orifice you pulled that accusation out of, I think there's been some misunderstanding.

 

[Deleted User - 4230896]

Wauw. So many comments
But i am glad to see that and get the talks going.

Now first of after reading the latest. YES you the players of the world know more about it then i do. No question in that. That is also why i kindda ask you to talk about what could be done about this. Because i as a CM. or moderator can only do so much with the tools i have been giving.

So for starters the deal is on you the players. Talk to each other and try to come to an agreement, that would be so much better and easier for me and the team.
With that being said. I have no favorite persons or alliances or anything else, i am on "all" your sides. I want to favor everyone and hear everyone's thoughts.
Hence why i made this topic.

This as i also wrote was a "test" of sorts to try and do something from my side. Yes i can crank up the cost of a fort battle, Or change the times of a declared battle, but that is about it, and yes i would think that has little effect, so again, you the players of the world, really have the biggest say in all of this.

BUT to each other, not to me or the team. Report each other if you will, for making multi battles, or for not showing up to a battle. I will look at it all, but in the end you are 1200+ players on the world, and fort battles on such a big player base will happen on all times a day, and with various times.
But with that amount of players, you should actually be able to fill completely fort battles at least a few times a day.

 

[Poker Alice]

@Hr Nyborg I do appreciate your goals here.
on the topic on Colorado Fort Fighting I think from a completely new members perspective who might never have ever visited this forum is able to click a battle plan then never shows up to it - is a function of the west game. Nasty maybe but not a rule breaker. That's my opinion.

@lulumcnoob Though I can respect your point of view can not handle YOU discussing an orifice in my body on a public forum. That should be clear and not a misunderstanding.

 

[DeletedUser15368]

Thanks for replying and apologies for making you read so much

So for starters the deal is on you the players. Talk to each other and try to come to an agreement, that would be so much better and easier for me and the team.

So, there is an agreement on Colorado aimed at delivering the highest quality of battles possible for all players on the world, and it has been in place for 7-8 years already, but as you have seen it is impossible to get 100% of the players to subscribe to an agreement.
The protocol for dealing with so called multi-digs is to just ignore them and focus on a "real" battle between the fort fighting community, but the big problem is that multi-battles draw players, especially offliners from other time-zones, away from the real fight, decreasing the quality of the battle that day, and the specific problem that Colorado is having now are multiple accounts digging multiple battles every day.

you are 1200+ players on the world, and fort battles on such a big player base will happen on all times a day, and with various times.
But with that amount of players, you should actually be able to fill completely fort battles at least a few times a day.

This is a romantic idea, but the reality is battles are rarely filled anymore, there's "only" around 140 fort fighters on any given day, they are concentrated in Europe and North America, meaning the only time we can actually fill a fort battle is "prime time" when the two main zones overlap.
There, of course, is no ban on attacking forts outside of prime time, if you take a look at the battle history, you'll find only 20 players show up to non-prime time battles for each side, when they aren't troll digs - a far cry from filling multiple battles per day.

When the Colorado agreement was signed and ratified all those years ago, with a vibrant an active player base much unlike today, we still didn't really have enough battle leaders for 3 battles per day (unless we were willing to sacrifice sleep). Today the situation is much more dire, we can barely manage 1 fight per day consistently and disruptions like these only make it harder to deliver a quality fort battle experience to the players, who will hopefully have fun and go on to spend money on fort battle gear.

A battle without a leader is a battle most won't attend, and a battle without an opposition it's just wasted time (and possibly nuggets for health potions) for those that do.

 

[Deleted User - 4230896]

But how would you know if "this" battle is a "fake" or not. And thinking i wont attend that one for sure.
Is it when a specific player has declared that battle or what ?

And by the way, my "no punishment" talk is that i would find it crazy to "ban" everyone who makes multi battles for starters. I want everyone to ease into this new "unofficial" rule i am trying out. And then in time, maybe tweak this in the long run.

 

[DeletedUser15368]

But how would you know if "this" battle is a "fake" or not. And thinking i wont attend that one for sure.
Is it when a specific player has declared that battle or what ?

Yes the biggest and quickest indicator is the name of the player who attacked the fort, because you can clearly see they've attacked 400 forts in a year and they've all had 0-3 attackers.
Sometimes they attack a fort at a time close to the fort alliances' battle, which i believe specifically aims to draw players away from the fight and waste their time.

We try to spread daily information on battles in the chat/telegrams/forums, but not everyone reads the suggestions and it's frequent to see players going to the wrong fort.

And by the way, my "no punishment" talk is that i would find it crazy to "ban" everyone who makes multi battles for starters. I want everyone to ease into this new "unofficial" rule i am trying out. And then in time, maybe tweak this in the long run.

It would definitely be wrong to ban anyone without a warning first, except in extreme circumstances. If you search the forums for "multi battles", you'll find dozens of threads going back for years talking about the problem and how it's ruined entire game worlds. Players have been banned for this behaviour in the past, but obviously best scenario would be to convince them to change and join in with the community, because we can't afford to turn away any fighters in the current, very broken, state of the game, however after years of this behaviour, there's nothing more the players can do to this effect.

 

[wyindywidualizowany]

It would be bad to ban someone without a warning first but I guess that naughty pumpkins ban for doing the exact same thing wasnt enough of a warning so they should be warned few more times