World setup changes
- Thread starter Hr.Nyborg
- Start date
- Status
Beefmeister
Well-Known Member
We tried to explain that to you for 2 days now..
There are 2 major alliances (regulators and storm riders), 1 other alliance (searchers - that agreed to participate in our agreement).
Rest of the alliances have nothing to do with the agreement: especially "nuns of holy toledo", which is a troll alliance made by naughty pumpkin and other people with certain issues that do not want this world to work as it should.
most of the people just know that nuns of holy toledo digs are troll digs and they just don't come. it's as simple as that...it's been like that for 10 years
who is right? a certain person who has obvious issues or 500 players that try to have fair fort fights? i think the answer there is pretty obvious
what's really funny is that you're telling us to try to work it out between ourselves, the players. WE TRIED. FOR 10 YEARS
you can't deal with people that are trolling and want to see the world burn
go ahead and check how many battles naughty pumpkin or doc paine dug in the last 6 months, and how many they attended...maybe you'll understand what we mean
Last edited:
Hr.Nyborg
Ex-Team Member
Well sorry for not understanding this all at first site ;-)
I am all for trying to make this better. But from my point of view.
I can see who called the battle, who joins and so on. BUT i can not see if a certain player shows up to the fight and are active in it, so this information will totally rely on your feedback.
Again i cant "delete" a fort battle, when it is declared, i can move the time of play if it is made like 5 minutes after another battle, hence maybe giving all a timeframe to either get to the next battle, or just recover until next one.
So as of now, i cant look at the world everyday, and would need the input from you the players, via a ticket for instance. Then i could move the declared times, and maybe after the battle, i would need proof that a certain player did not battle / move etc. under the fort battle. Because i cant see that as well.
Then i could give warnings out to this / these persons and maybe by then, hinder some of these "fake battles"
How does that sound ?
I am all for trying to make this better. But from my point of view.
I can see who called the battle, who joins and so on. BUT i can not see if a certain player shows up to the fight and are active in it, so this information will totally rely on your feedback.
Again i cant "delete" a fort battle, when it is declared, i can move the time of play if it is made like 5 minutes after another battle, hence maybe giving all a timeframe to either get to the next battle, or just recover until next one.
So as of now, i cant look at the world everyday, and would need the input from you the players, via a ticket for instance. Then i could move the declared times, and maybe after the battle, i would need proof that a certain player did not battle / move etc. under the fort battle. Because i cant see that as well.
Then i could give warnings out to this / these persons and maybe by then, hinder some of these "fake battles"
How does that sound ?
The easiest solution to fix Colorado(and how unfair it might sound) is allowing only the members 2 alliance with most players (Regulators and Storm Riders) to be able to dig between 19:00 and 00:00 server time and restricting the battles to 3 per day, that way the 1-man towns will be able to dig and not get banned and the rest will be enjoying 1 "good" battle per day so everyone will be happy.
Another solution can be to give a dig cooldown on the player, 1-week cooldown so 1-man towns won't be able to try and destroy the fun for everyone
Another solution can be to give a dig cooldown on the player, 1-week cooldown so 1-man towns won't be able to try and destroy the fun for everyone
Beefmeister
Well-Known Member
of course you can see if they attended or not. you just start an account on that world and check for their name on every battle in the last 6 month that has 20vs0 attendees or a similar number.
if you don't see their name in the side that attacked (the one with 0 attendees...i'm sure you get the point
) then you know they didn't show up.
Roffo Snake is the only one that attends his battles...i don't know the exact reason why he's digging multis atm but it doesn't seem normal either
i think most of the people here are aware that probably banning the players isn't a solution. i don't agree with banning them either, unless there's literally no other solution. but i'm sure together we can come to a mutual consensus to stop these players disrupting the experience of the well intended fort fighters.
thank you for your time and patience
if you don't see their name in the side that attacked (the one with 0 attendees...i'm sure you get the point
) then you know they didn't show up.Roffo Snake is the only one that attends his battles...i don't know the exact reason why he's digging multis atm but it doesn't seem normal either
i think most of the people here are aware that probably banning the players isn't a solution. i don't agree with banning them either, unless there's literally no other solution. but i'm sure together we can come to a mutual consensus to stop these players disrupting the experience of the well intended fort fighters.
thank you for your time and patience
Last edited:
C0OPeR
Well-Known Member
why not join colorado and join storm rider alliance or regulators alliance , to see how we work each other to balance battles and numbers and digs ?
in past diggo and da twista was in colorado too
in my point first step to solve this can be like this :
first dig by a town be 50k
secound dig by a same town in next 72 hour of his dig be something like 500.000$ :/ so trolls will not have money to dig next
after 72 hour pass , it can return for 50k ...
in past diggo and da twista was in colorado too
in my point first step to solve this can be like this :
first dig by a town be 50k
secound dig by a same town in next 72 hour of his dig be something like 500.000$ :/ so trolls will not have money to dig next
after 72 hour pass , it can return for 50k ...
lulumcnoob
Well-Known Member
Neither of these can be achieved without coding, so it's next to impossible to achieve, and it's usually 1 or 2 leaders who dig all of the "legit" battles.
There was very likely ban evasion through new accounts the last time it happened, so I agree it won't solve the problem in any way, just means we need to learn a new name.
I feel like this is a semi-viable solution, but a lot of work for yourself and the team that you shouldn't have to do every single day, and if a battle was moved, it would be unfair to judge attendance.
I don't remember warnings ever working in the past, the griefing usually only lasted a few months at most before they got bored, but it's been years of this.
In conjunction with moving the spam battles, warnings and subsequent actions would be the strongest stance I've ever seen a .net CoMa take against sustained multi-battles, and I fully welcome that. It seems the years have turned me authoritarian
Last edited:
szycopath
Well-Known Member
What I love about this world (game) is that there's always so so sooo much talk, even more emotions, then everyone kinda loses sight of the initial topic, then someone offends someone else, then everyone tries to make peace and then we all forget about why we came and everything stays the same.
@Hr.Nyborg
The situation is quite simple:
> There are troll digs that kill FFs for the majority
> A big battle will require at least 260 people on a server where the so called big alliances have about 2-300 members. Not a realistic expectation to "fill battles a few times a day", even medium ones because while it might be news -not everyone is into FFs. Also, half of the 1k+ players on that server are pretty much inactive
> Inno can (and should) take responsibility because while "it's not against the rules to dig 10battles/hr" and that is correct per se, it's still on inno to fix this. Either by removing the players who dig multies, or by changing the rules.
I don't understand the hesitation. When our beloved beta "troll" digged every fort he could find merely for the jokes, beta digs started to cost big money before we could say abrakadabra, battle numbers have been changed for something more realistic, etc, so we all know that it is in fact possible.
If Inno doesn't want to take action for whatever reason that's also ok, we got used to it, but then this entire thread is just a show-off without any actions following
We, the players, cannot solve this. We've tried, but our hands are tied to making deals with each other and have no tools against those not taking part in said deals. You can hide behind the rules and avoid making undemocratic/unpopular decisions but these rules were initially designed for a very different environment with a lot more players, entirely different gameplay, so they might be worth a re-read
@Hr.Nyborg
The situation is quite simple:
> There are troll digs that kill FFs for the majority
> A big battle will require at least 260 people on a server where the so called big alliances have about 2-300 members. Not a realistic expectation to "fill battles a few times a day", even medium ones because while it might be news -not everyone is into FFs. Also, half of the 1k+ players on that server are pretty much inactive
> Inno can (and should) take responsibility because while "it's not against the rules to dig 10battles/hr" and that is correct per se, it's still on inno to fix this. Either by removing the players who dig multies, or by changing the rules.
I don't understand the hesitation. When our beloved beta "troll" digged every fort he could find merely for the jokes, beta digs started to cost big money before we could say abrakadabra, battle numbers have been changed for something more realistic, etc, so we all know that it is in fact possible.
If Inno doesn't want to take action for whatever reason that's also ok, we got used to it, but then this entire thread is just a show-off without any actions following
We, the players, cannot solve this. We've tried, but our hands are tied to making deals with each other and have no tools against those not taking part in said deals. You can hide behind the rules and avoid making undemocratic/unpopular decisions but these rules were initially designed for a very different environment with a lot more players, entirely different gameplay, so they might be worth a re-read
Hr.Nyborg
Ex-Team Member
My solution to "just move the battle times" Was when you the players see, that if you make 3 battles right after each other, they will just be moved.
Then it might work that the "fakers" stop making a new battle 5 minutes after a "real" battle has been declared.
At least this is my thought on how to work around this issue.
In teams of setup, i can only change how much each battle cost, i cant micromanage that for each city or alliance etc. So this setup will be for everyone. More money needed to declare a battle. Right now it is at 6 out of 9, so there is still room to crank up the cost, if that should make a difference.
These 2 options is actually the only ones i have to (from my side) help with the multi fort battles. The rest will be up to you.
EDIT: Oh and yes, sorry by the way, i can see statistic about the fort fights, so i can check up on that my self yes. Thank you
Then it might work that the "fakers" stop making a new battle 5 minutes after a "real" battle has been declared.
At least this is my thought on how to work around this issue.
In teams of setup, i can only change how much each battle cost, i cant micromanage that for each city or alliance etc. So this setup will be for everyone. More money needed to declare a battle. Right now it is at 6 out of 9, so there is still room to crank up the cost, if that should make a difference.
These 2 options is actually the only ones i have to (from my side) help with the multi fort battles. The rest will be up to you.
EDIT: Oh and yes, sorry by the way, i can see statistic about the fort fights, so i can check up on that my self yes. Thank you
C0OPeR
Well-Known Member
i am sure , changing the time will not help us as kuro did it before with my tickets , u can check yourself , we just can not reach 50-60 person in each side while the time changed :/ , we just loose some numbers to defend troll ones
can u do this ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
first dig by a town be 50k
secound dig by a same town in next 72 hour of his dig be something like 500.000$ :/ so trolls will not have money to dig next
after 72 hour pass , it can return for 50k ...
can u do this ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
first dig by a town be 50k
secound dig by a same town in next 72 hour of his dig be something like 500.000$ :/ so trolls will not have money to dig next
after 72 hour pass , it can return for 50k ...
HelenBack
Well-Known Member
Would it be possible to restrict any player from being able to dig for 47 hours? Even if it was for the whole world and restricted ALL players... If the same main leader digs, it's usually every 48 hours. Each side takes a turn... It shouldn't affect the prime battles of the day.
Colorado has definitely had the best battle balance record of all worlds... This world has been willing to work together on keeping a reasonable balance and adjusted to maintain that balance by moving towns or forts to the other side as necessary. I'm on most worlds and have played for... um... how long has it been? lol Just as w8 opened...
Been thru a lot on all worlds... Winning side, losing side, no side... And seen a lot of turmoil, unbalanced battles, etc. Colorado holds 1st place for maintaining balance. Kudos Colorado! 
Another idea would be if Naughty, Roffo or Doc would like to dig a REAL battle... Maybe they could contact one of the alliances to make arrangements to use their Prime Time dig time and request their support. Then they could have a real battle and possibly win a fort for their alliance.
Colorado has definitely had the best battle balance record of all worlds... This world has been willing to work together on keeping a reasonable balance and adjusted to maintain that balance by moving towns or forts to the other side as necessary. I'm on most worlds and have played for... um... how long has it been? lol Just as w8 opened...
Been thru a lot on all worlds... Winning side, losing side, no side... And seen a lot of turmoil, unbalanced battles, etc. Colorado holds 1st place for maintaining balance. Kudos Colorado! Another idea would be if Naughty, Roffo or Doc would like to dig a REAL battle... Maybe they could contact one of the alliances to make arrangements to use their Prime Time dig time and request their support. Then they could have a real battle and possibly win a fort for their alliance.
Roffo Snake
Member
Would it be possible to restrict any player from being able to dig for 47 hours? Even if it was for the whole world and restricted ALL players... If the same main leader digs, it's usually every 48 hours. Each side takes a turn... It shouldn't affect the prime battles of the day.
Colorado has definitely had the best battle balance record of all worlds... This world has been willing to work together on keeping a reasonable balance and adjusted to maintain that balance by moving towns or forts to the other side as necessary. I'm on most worlds and have played for... um... how long has it been? lol Just as w8 opened...
Another idea would be if Naughty, Roffo or Doc would like to dig a REAL battle... Maybe they could contact one of the alliances to make arrangements to use their Prime Time dig time and request their support. Then they could have a real battle and possibly win a fort for their alliance.
(No, that is called rigging the system)
(Why should any player have to go get approval to dig a fort, if it is because of the so-call primetime battle fake claim which in my opinion is only to allow two alliances to maintain a monopoly on forts there should be no regrouping in war just battling.
This is ridiculous to try and charge other players insane fees to dig so as to allow others to not be forced to defend, I have issues with leaving a blocked primetime battle zone, but if it makes the majority of players happy let it be, but then how do you decide who will be allowed to battle during that time, let me guess only the two monopolies)
Roffo Snake
Member
why not join colorado and join storm rider alliance or regulators alliance , to see how we work each other to balance battles and numbers and digs ?
in past diggo and da twista was in colorado too
in my point first step to solve this can be like this :
first dig by a town be 50k
secound dig by a same town in next 72 hour of his dig be something like 500.000$ :/ so trolls will not have money to dig next
after 72 hour pass , it can return for 50k ...
Your pricing structure only allows monopolies to stay in power, it is a sick idea to be rigging the game in this manner.
ImmortalMadGuys
Well-Known Member
Mate are kidding? we can see last forts dug buy you and 2 other mates
when I dig a fort I had to Have plan for it
and sure I HAVE to ATTEND fort that I dig
P.S. we can see All ppl are wrong I mean ALL ppl in here except 3 mates
Zuluski
Well-Known Member
Roffo,
the prime objective of the 2 main alliances on Colorado is not to have a monopoly of all the forts but to provide Colorado fort fighters with full, balanced competative battles during the optimal time frame (prime time) that suits most players.
Your and the other 2 humpty dumpties digs suck irrespective what time you guys will dig and that is the one thing everyone is trying to avoid. Not you not owning any forts but having totally crap battles that waste everyones time.
Is this concept so difficult to understand? If so, let me know, i will try to be even more clear in my next reply.
the prime objective of the 2 main alliances on Colorado is not to have a monopoly of all the forts but to provide Colorado fort fighters with full, balanced competative battles during the optimal time frame (prime time) that suits most players.
Your and the other 2 humpty dumpties digs suck irrespective what time you guys will dig and that is the one thing everyone is trying to avoid. Not you not owning any forts but having totally crap battles that waste everyones time.
Is this concept so difficult to understand? If so, let me know, i will try to be even more clear in my next reply.
Cactus Poke
Member
I understand that you are somewhat constrained on what you can actually do with the tools at your disposal. I have a couple questions.
Can you also check that the battles that are moved, are not the ones dug by one of the two main alliances (Storm Riders or Regulators)?
Will this apply to our 'prime-time' - which is 18:00 to 23:59?
I think something like this could work. If we can get our one competitive battle per day, the majority of Colorado would be thankful.
I also think you will become as frustrated, as we have become, due to the amount of needless work these multi battles cause.
My two cents:
1) The same town digging multiple battles should have to pay a large percentage of their towns bank balance on top of the standard cost. (town bank balances on this world are a joke -- even digging 10 battles in an hour barely dents the balance of an established town).
2) The same town digging a battle within 1h of another of their battles should have to pay 51% of their towns bank balance on top of the standard cost.
3) An individual who digs but fails to attend ("no show digs") should be blocked from digging again for 24 hours, with an additional 24h for each subsequent offense, i.e. 2nd offense 48h ban, third offense 72h ban and so on.
1) The same town digging multiple battles should have to pay a large percentage of their towns bank balance on top of the standard cost. (town bank balances on this world are a joke -- even digging 10 battles in an hour barely dents the balance of an established town).
2) The same town digging a battle within 1h of another of their battles should have to pay 51% of their towns bank balance on top of the standard cost.
3) An individual who digs but fails to attend ("no show digs") should be blocked from digging again for 24 hours, with an additional 24h for each subsequent offense, i.e. 2nd offense 48h ban, third offense 72h ban and so on.
I see abpve that you cannot see if a digger was a no-show. We'll be happy to send in tickets to report no-show digs if we have some reason to believe something will come of those tickets
- Status