Feedback Policies for Spam Fort Battles

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
If the two primary drivers of this wish to alternate days and bring in a number of attackers then they would be in compliance with the temporary restriction and that would indeed be a healthy development.

As is, since august 7, 18 battles have completed
Of those 6 were No Show digs, 5 had four or fewer attackers, 5 were cancelled for policy violations.

Two more were scheduled before the policy was announced. One by a repeat no-show digger, the other by level 34 player in a one person town who has "recruited" all of 2 players, not set a topic, and as of T-35m was not online or present at the fort
There were 12 days with no daily fight on Kansas since Mid July (July 15th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 26th ,27th, 30th, August 3rd, 6th; 15 days if we don´t count Awesomia fights). These 6 fights that you count as no show are fights that you cancelled.

So do you want to tell me that there was a dig rotation on Kansas and daily fights before these small alliances and independent towns started to dig?
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
There were 12 days with no daily fight on Kansas since Mid July (July 15th, 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 26th ,27th, 30th, August 3rd, 6th; 15 days if we don´t count Awesomia fights). These 6 fights that you count as no show are fights that you cancelled.

So do you want to tell me that there was a dig rotation on Kansas and daily fights before these small alliances and independent towns started to dig?
The 6 no show digs were independent of the 5 cancelled battles.
 

ScarletKisses

Well-Known Member
If the two primary drivers of this wish to alternate days and bring in a number of attackers then they would be in compliance with the temporary restriction and that would indeed be a healthy development.

As is, since august 7, 18 battles have completed
Of those 6 were No Show digs, 5 had four or fewer attackers, 5 were cancelled for policy violations.

Two more were scheduled before the policy was announced. One by a repeat no-show digger, the other by level 34 player in a one person town who has "recruited" all of 2 players, not set a topic, and as of T-35m was not online or present at the fort
ITS a DEAD World and yet again those who spam support all time get their own way .. This game is going downhill very fast..
I see more and more leaving. Support should be just that a way to support ALL of the players not just a select few who talk a lot
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
A “no show dig” is a battle where the player who dug is a no show at the battle.
I only checked the battle overview, didn´t check every battle report so can´t verify if what you claim is true or not. Regardless of it, you are being manipulated by hats from big alliance that want an exclusive right to dig on a dead world. Right that they use sparely since there are no daily digs or rotation.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
guess what? the "no-show" diggers (or what some call troll diggers) are winning. They don't want to go to the ff's. They want to annoy people, and they want reactions. They are getting just that...whethor it be from angry players or the GM's monitoring round the clock to cancel or move battles.

If they are digging forts in a potentially dead world...leave it be. They are bringing life to an otherwise potentially dead world
You can still fight opponent vs. opponent, which beats 1-sided any day (and doesn't waste time for everyone). Worse case (actually BEST case) scenario...they may end up with a couple of forts. Guess what!? The fort is now open for either major alliance to dig. You now have more ff's! Isn't that what most people want???
 

JWillow

Well-Known Member
While Kansas is very much dead, why should trolls/newbies get free passes? If the ones you are calling newbies actually cared to try fort battles, they would not being doing the same thing over and over again with the same bad results. Battles are a team based activity, which means team building and also requires responsibility on some level, ie showing up, ranking, leading and perhaps finding supporters.

You say the first few got support, well that sounds like some players gave the newbie a chance and he probably didn't even do the basic of being online to rank and lead.

Also the actions you are calling out now are not out of the blue, he went on for awhile before being reported. So not like they threw the book at him on his first go at digging. He had plenty of time hands off and instead of improving he stayed the same.

Highly doubt mod interference is why players are leaving, as there is a good number of long time players leaving just as much.


Though I do wonder, troll digs are being heavily punished but the push battles on Colorado are being ignored. A small select group of onliners have been farming free wins, bond, experience with no risk to themselves(ie no chance they will die in battles). Then turn around and transfer the farmed forts back to keep their non competitive battles going. They make no efforts to balance the battles, they are perfectly happy digging assured wins with no resistance,

I understand moving forts if there are also efforts being made to have competitive battles, but to move them to feed a small group to be able to push rewards out of the game mode seems worse than trolls digging to annoy players.

But anyway, spank the trolls and leave the rule breakers to farm unmolested, sounds good.
 

NovaStar

Well-Known Member
That's just it...the "trolls/newbies" ARE getting free passes...each time they get a reaction. Apparently, that's all they want is a rise and reactions and now they have it from not only the players but from the mods's having to be "on call" round the clock to "spank" them also. The troll/newbies are winning at their game.

However, the latter part of your post makes sense @JWillow and I agree with your thoughts regarding the farmed forts being shoved back and forth keeping "non-competitive battles going", etc...
 

sanidh

Well-Known Member
Alas, some players as leaders of the biggest alliance on kansas chose to outlaw fortbattles completely yet now cry when the devs decide to outlaw no show battles, the hypocrisy is beyond hilarious.

I guess this is what happens when you choose to play the game on the forums instead.
 

1247can

New Member
hello everyone,

I don't know if this has been asked before, but there is a question I'm curious about:

If there is an awesomia fort battles with a reward in 24 hours, can players start 4 fort battles?
i.e. 1 awesomia event war and 4 player normal fort battles, 5 fort battles in total.

I use google translate, sorry for the wrong sentences
Thanks
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
GM Awesomia battles are similar to other battles with the exception they stay on the board longer and so are protected from digs that would start <2h before them.

So if there is an awesomia battle on the board it counts towards the “ 4 or more battles are already scheduled” and a fifth battle must not be “within 6 hours of the previous battle”. The “previous battle” would be whichever battle would occur most recently before that fifth battle.
 

1247can

New Member
So, can we open 2 fort battles at the same time while there are 3 fort battles?
To confuse the defending team and hide which castle the real battle will be on.

What I want to ask is, can the 4th and 5th fort battles be declared according to the list below?

1.fort battles: 03.45 PM
2.fort battles: 08.30 PM
3.fort battles: 00.18 AM
4.fort battles 10.56 AM
5.fort battles 11.40 AM
 
Top