Feedback Policies for Spam Fort Battles

[Goober Pyle]

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

Technically the 5th battle there would be a violation (particularly if any of battles 1-3 were from the same ally)

However,
1) in all cases if there are no complaints (including no history of complaints about the same actors), then no action will be taken
2) the first offense is usually let stand to give the digger the benefit of the doubt that their actions have a reasonable legitimate purpose
And 3) the Fort Battle Team is empowered to exercise discretion where in their judgment intervention or non-intervention is in the best interests of the community, particularly during times of event currency

For the particular scenario you describe, it would be preferable that the fifth battle be scheduled within 10 minutes of the fourth battle. This prevents players being able to attend both battles, so avoids the possibility that the battles are considered push battles.

 

[Beefmeister]

wouldn't it be easier to allocate a timeline for a prime battle for every country

then you allow only one single battle to be dug every 12 hours

 

[martoru]

server is .net so only one prime time battle related to server time

 

[Azeul]

So I'm curious, with the recent surge of battles and the intense amount of rescheduled and cancelled battles through the last Oktoberfest event, the plight of over digging is still persisting. I went back to re-read the policies for the spam battles, which I'm not whole heartedly in agreance with but now is the proclaimed and established rule set. It uses wording such as: declaring battles within 3 hrs of another battle, generally more than 2 battles by same town/alliance/player, declaring excessive amounts of battles, etc. and with the possibility of warning and punishing those players. So why does this continue to happen with a repetitive and confusing outcome of simply cancelling or shifting the battle vs eliminating the problem with regards to battles on CO?

I know in the past, with which players that were eliminated from the game entirely or routinely set into temporary bans, it was handled swiftly and without so much of a flicker of tolerance. Are the rules too vague? Are they too demanding of action towards offenses? What's the real goal here... is it to secure fun, friendly battles or is it to allow certain folks the ability to play as they wish and others be cast from game play completely?

I'm seriously at a loss with this spam battle policy and how it plays towards certain groups tendencies while others are held against the rulebook.

You said transparency was the goal, so I'm asking on behalf of that and not much further. I don't truly wish to see players banished or punished, just a set of ordanances that is set forth for all players game-wide to accomodate. Cheers

 

[Oddersfield]

So I'm curious, with the recent surge of battles and the intense amount of rescheduled and cancelled battles through the last Oktoberfest event, the plight of over digging is still persisting. I went back to re-read the policies for the spam battles, which I'm not whole heartedly in agreance with but now is the proclaimed and established rule set. It uses wording such as: declaring battles within 3 hrs of another battle, generally more than 2 battles by same town/alliance/player, declaring excessive amounts of battles, etc. and with the possibility of warning and punishing those players. So why does this continue to happen with a repetitive and confusing outcome of simply cancelling or shifting the battle vs eliminating the problem with regards to battles on CO?

I know in the past, with which players that were eliminated from the game entirely or routinely set into temporary bans, it was handled swiftly and without so much of a flicker of tolerance. Are the rules too vague? Are they too demanding of action towards offenses? What's the real goal here... is it to secure fun, friendly battles or is it to allow certain folks the ability to play as they wish and others be cast from game play completely?

I'm seriously at a loss with this spam battle policy and how it plays towards certain groups tendencies while others are held against the rulebook.

You said transparency was the goal, so I'm asking on behalf of that and not much further. I don't truly wish to see players banished or punished, just a set of ordanances that is set forth for all players game-wide to accomodate. Cheers

It was always thus in many areas within the game: little transparency and consistency in decision making. I am not sure whether it is funny or sad, but on some worlds each side is convinced that the other is favoured by Inno. I could argue it is good that Inno annoy everybody equally and so must be doing a good job. On the other hand, Inno upsetting so many players shows how poor their processes are.

Certainly, if you don't accept their superficial, non-commital answers and continue to query, they simply terminate the conversation rather than say anything of substance.

 

[WesternCalin]

What is the worst thing here is that both sides, meaning the main aliances are at a loss here since there is a 3rd party involved here that just spams battles without even having enough people to join their battle. Somewhere in the rules there was something about attending the battle dug and leading and getting enough people to join you on that battle but it seems this is not the case for certain people on Colorado. Having no more than 3 people attending your side for almost already a week on a world like Colorado without any repercussions taken is more then upsetting.

 

[Goober Pyle]

What is the worst thing here is that both sides, meaning the main aliances are at a loss here since there is a 3rd party involved here that just spams battles without even having enough people to join their battle. Somewhere in the rules there was something about attending the battle dug and leading and getting enough people to join you on that battle but it seems this is not the case for certain people on Colorado. Having no more than 3 people attending your side for almost already a week on a world like Colorado without any repercussions taken is more then upsetting.

The proposed requirements for "attending the battle dug and leading and getting enough people to join you" did not make it into the formal rule that was established by Headquarters.

The battles in question have (mostly) been in compliance with the formal rule (some have not and most of those have been canceled, and the specific offenses have [largely] not been repeated).

Therefor our ability to act relies on the "These scenarios may not cover every eventuality. The support team may choose to take actions in cases not covered by these policies." clause, which we are reluctant to use -- we want to avoid an appearance of heavy-handedness, so wait for a clear pattern of abuse to be established before making an intervention.

In this specific instance, the pattern has become clear and we are responding with a temporary intervention:

Temporary additional Fort Battle Limitations on Colorado

Due to a recent pattern of fort battle declarations rising to the level of abuse in violation of the Spam policy: https://forum.the-west.net/index.php?threads/policies-for-spam-fort-battles.61409/ specifically: 'that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others,' an...

forum.the-west.net

 

[martoru]

ABUSE
why 40 hours and not 24? or 72?


noy players are to blame, INNO is with non realistic Lincoln cannon accivment

 

[Goober Pyle]

ABUSE
why 40 hours and not 24? or 72?

40 hours is more or less designed to limit players to digging every other day while allowing them to choose different times of day. Given the protected Prime-Time window, the net effect is "every other day", but removes ambiguity

noy players are to blame, INNO is with non realistic Lincoln cannon accivment

yes, unfortunately achievement hunting is presumed to be a "legitimate purpose" so we need work around that presumption for the benefit of the community as a whole.

 

[martoru]

...

yes, unfortunately achievement hunting is presumed to be a "legitimate purpose" so we need work around that presumption for the benefit of the community as a whole.

change accivment to a more realistic limit..1k or so

 

[Goober Pyle]

change accivment to a more realistic limit..1k or so

I think making the achievement easier would only incentivize more players to pursue it this way.
I will, however, propose the cannon be moved to the "Legend of Fort battles | Win 2500 fort battles" achievement, as the individual spammer wouldn't benefit from digging spam battles.

 

[Beefmeister]

nobody cares about any of these achievements...

if it really needs a fix just lower the requirements for them
the policies for me are ok

 

[buchstabensuppe]

nobody cares about any of these achievements...

That's obviously wrong. People on achievement hunt (someone on place 2 of the achievement ranking, for example) do care.

Whether we like it or not.

And… well… ahm… why is it that these fort battle achievement hunters are stopped, but the duel achievement hunters aren't? Both are annoying others.
As may be those who put their junk on the market for the market achievements.

 

[JWillow]

And… well… ahm… why is it that these fort battle achievement hunters are stopped, but the duel achievement hunters aren't? Both are annoying others.
As may be those who put their junk on the market for the market achievements.

My opinion on why fort battle achievement pushers are not healthy, is that when they push achievements they do so by not fulfilling the game mode, it is a team based one. By intentionally digging spam battles that fill the board with waste of buff battles, it can confuse some. They are negatively effecting a wider range of players.

Also spamming adventures would also be wrong in my opinion as once again it is a team based mode. For example a player joining an adventure and set bank/loon then disconnect for the rest of the adventure. That would also be an abuse.

For duel based, yes definitely annoying, but they are spending the time to travel, buff, and change clothes. Also the players being dueled can stop it my KOing. Also being duel is a part of being in town, even if there were no achievements, still be those who enjoy dueling no matter what and without other motivations.

As for junk for market achievements, umm, not sure how that effects players, maybe you can explain how that is annoying? As I go to market and not bothered by an abundance of items on it, if I know what I want, can always search for it. Maybe I am missing your point on that. Or are you talking about players working together to force the achievement faster?

 

[Alduin]

And… well… ahm… why is it that these fort battle achievement hunters are stopped, but the duel achievement hunters aren't? Both are annoying others.
As may be those who put their junk on the market for the market achievements.

duels effecting only the people getting dueled but spam battles effecting the alliances thats why. have you ever heard a word "neglectable" ?

 

[Beefmeister]

so technically a town has the right to dig every 40 hours outside of prime. it has to be 6 hours before the prime time battle or 6 hours after the prime time battle

what if i'm the one who digs first and someone else digs the prime battle after me and my battle interferes with the prime? will my battle get cancelled or moved earlier?
what if i'm a neutral town and i dig a battle first, mostly at the same time with the major alliances. will my battle get cancelled?

 

[Goober Pyle]

so technically a town has the right to dig every 40 hours outside of prime. it has to be 6 hours before the prime time battle or 6 hours after the prime time battle

what if i'm the one who digs first and someone else digs the prime battle after me and my battle interferes with the prime? will my battle get cancelled or moved earlier?
what if i'm a neutral town and i dig a battle first, mostly at the same time with the major alliances. will my battle get cancelled?

Conflicting battles will generally be cancelled not moved.

If it’s two conflicting battles Outside of prime time: the earlier battle will generally take precedence without regard to alliance.

If the battles are closer than 15m then generally it will be excused (permitting another dig without a 40h wait)

For afternoon battles, if they can be moved earlier without creating another conflict AND the digger affirms they will be available to lead at the earlier time they MAY be moved instead. In practice it would be preferable for the digger of the offending battle to request the rescheduling themselves.

 

[Clever Hans]

It's really a joke how micromanaged the battles are right now. When someone from Inno finally decides to ditch this "Bible of rules" or implement the restrictions via changes of game code, give me a call. Until then, I'm staying out of that once fun and now beyond corrupt and stale mode of game.

 

[sanidh]

Conflicting battles will generally be cancelled not moved.

If it’s two conflicting battles Outside of prime time: the earlier battle will generally take precedence without regard to alliance.

If the battles are closer than 15m then generally it will be excused (permitting another dig without a 40h wait)

For afternoon battles, if they can be moved earlier without creating another conflict AND the digger affirms they will be available to lead at the earlier time they MAY be moved instead. In practice it would be preferable for the digger of the offending battle to request the rescheduling themselves.

Took you guys long enough, this should have been done 10 days ago.

 

[Harsha..]

Personally, I don't see the need to "rush" achievements and finish them as soon as possible. The whole reason innogames raised the level cap and added a bunch of achievements is to give the older players something to do. Back when level 150 was the cap and we still had the old achievements, people would "complete" the game pretty quickly and complain about there being nothing new to do. I also want the 3750 FF achievement, but I'm willing to take my time about it - the game isn't going away and will still be here 10 years later.

It's really a joke how micromanaged the battles are right now. When someone from Inno finally decides to ditch this "Bible of rules" or implement the restrictions via changes of game code, give me a call. Until then, I'm staying out of that once fun and now beyond corrupt and stale mode of game.

The reason rules exist, both in the real world and in the game is because people abuse the system and as a result, make things worse for everyone else. If these "bible of rules" didn't exist, players would be digging 12 battles a day for the achievements. Yes, that's correct - people ARE that crazy and deluded. They WOULD do that sort of thing if it were allowed. We would be seeing 2 player attacks through all off prime battles, primes would be heavily disrupted, it would be very diffcult to organize a quality FF and to get people to attend the correct battle. Effectively, FFing would be ruined for all those who still play them.

The rules are not perfect, but it's what we have. We can keep on giving constructive feedback and working on them. But, at the end of the day, know the right people to blame for them existing in the first place.