It cant kill the battles... if someone is noob and cant read the telegramm from the leader that which is the main battle and later complains about the battle , then its his problem what deserve
That is certainly one opinion, but all of the data and all of the experience says otherwise, for example:
Las Vegas was a respectable mid-quality world, with battles every 2 days, although the low Battle Score indicates imbalanced sides:
The town of Blood Moon goes on a spamming-spree for 1 month, with a maximum of 9 attackers, and winning just 1 fort, which was taken back instantly:
This is the result:
More battles with fewer attendances, dropped the quality of the battles to the bottom of the rankings. Battles are now dead on this world, because of the month of spam battles. The .net team has intervened under the new policy, and IF things now go back to "normal" for this world, I think they can feel vindicated with their new policy. Time will tell, of course.
This is the kind of game-killing behaviour that this policy targets, and I support it 100% - because I've seen this kill too many worlds.
Now don't get me wrong, I actually don't mind if trash worlds decide to kill themselves and get closed, leading to consolidation of our fighters, and more importantly battle leaders. But many players want to keep playing on these dead worlds - this, at the very least, means griefers and trolls like this can't ruin their game - it's on the fort fighters to let it live or die on the quality of their battles alone.
It's obviously much better for a player that wants to get involved with battles to actually work with the fort community on any given world to get more than 7 attackers to your battles, leading to higher quality battles, then leading to more players wanting to join in, leading to higher quality battles...
Even on Colorado, the best fort world in the entire game - spam has a massive negative effect on the attendance and the quality of battles. I don't know why some players never read their telegrams, or topics, or forums, or anywhere we try to communicate, but it's just how it is - we always lose people to spam battles, then they get annoyed, then we tell them to read the instructions, then they get madder.
I'll agree though that it's not as much of a problem on a stable Prime world like Colorado that can literally still support two battles a day, as it is on a small vulnerable world like every other world in the game that I know anything about. This policy actually comes from Colorado, where we had problems with a player called Naughty Pumpkin, trying to do the same thing as Blood Moon, but over a much longer period of time - months multi-spam didn't kill Colorado, but it did decrease the quality and the participants substantially. It's not about stopping anyone from attacking a fort, it's not even about stopping multi battles. It's about preventing a drop in the quality and attendance that leads to a snowball of players quitting.
If you want to know what works long-term, simply look to Colorado.
