(Interim) Local Community Rule on abusive Fort Fights

[Laural]

As usual Victor Kruger has some well thought out and innovative ideas - that work. And ruffles all kinds of feathers in the process but promotes activity and fun. All stuff that we can try from time to time to breathe life into the worlds.

I stuck an idea in the (Ideas and Brainfarts) this morning that involves INNO action to breathe some new life into a once REALLY fun game.


Maybe, just maybe, something constructive, and positive will come from this forum once again.

 

[Hypnosis]

Yep, make everything totally overregulated. Dont let players have any freedom, decide each and every gaming aspect for them! Because we probably are unable to regulate and decide in any gaming aspect for ourselves, we cant have any tactics, ect.

Wonderfull, make everything overregulated, kill freedom in this game, BUT dont ask afterwards - why no one plays this police simulator anymore...

 

[Caerdwyn]

In my opinion, the right of the 1 to dig should be weighted proportionally to the rights of the 180 enjoying a daily fort battle.

It really only matters in those territories where the right of the 1 to dig is not weighted to the rights of the 720 to get into one of four daily digs. Neither of my worlds has 720 people, so we don't dig that often. Problem solved.

 

[Thanatoss]

Bring back the old thewest!!!

 

[Kidd Kalypso]

What world's really have this issue? The ones that I am in don't even have any fort battles, at least a multi would allow a few peeps to show up for the daily bond

 

[Victor Kruger]

What world's really have this issue? The ones that I am in don't even have any fort battles, at least a multi would allow a few peeps to show up for the daily bond

There isnt any issues anywhere that i can see either.. the occasional spam mutli njub so what ? .. theres a ban hammer for those "special players"and thats what the vague rules on rules interpretation are for stating... "a moderators interpretation and decision is final" no explanation required and thats that..

It was fine for 13 years ....

 

[Kidd Kalypso]

There isnt any issues anywhere that i can see either.. the occasional spam mutli njub so what ? .. theres a ban hammer for those "special players"and thats what the vague rules on rules interpretation are for stating... "a moderators interpretation and decision is final" no explanation required and thats that..

It was fine for 13 years ....

In that case, why the brouhaha over such a trivial matter?
Multi battles are still, and have always been a valid tactic.
Has this game become "woke" ?
Are we gonna have safe spaces next?
LOL, you just have to laugh at the silliness.

 

[Goober Pyle]

In that case, why the brouhaha over such a trivial matter?
Multi battles are still, and have always been a valid tactic.
Has this game become "woke" ?
Are we gonna have safe spaces next?
LOL, you just have to laugh at the silliness.

This proposal dates back months when NP was active, Ohio was being particularly disruptive and there had been several multis on a few worlds and a decision to tolerate them in limited circumstances. While it was more or less the policy in effect for the speed world, that I felt the need to hesitate with regards to the speed world multi prompted me to push this out early in this way, appreciating the opportunity to solicit feedback in advance of rolling it out fully.

 

[NovaStar]

We once did the call every single fort in one evening to "blow " up the world because we had won them all.. the world was over if something wasnt done immediately and was a great solution entirely for the benefit of the world. It was ofc legendary, hilarious & fun but also did what it was supposed to. Rejuvinated w9 all over again allowing small town and alliances who helped to gain some foothold again and despite others new worlds opening w9 stayed busy for years longer than it would have, no question about it ...

The VERY BEST suggestion I've seen yet I love it, Victor!

 

[foscock]

Um, this is like 6 years too late, you already lost most interest in battles, and the game. A multi now would actually be a break in the tedium. Goober, you're supposed to be balancing, not fixing problems that don't exist. Please focus on making an attack worth attending, instead of trying to justify your job with random useless rules.

 

[Snr Sarg]

that is correct.

taken to the extreme, an alliance could dig all 42 forts in 1h, but first they'd have to have failed at an attempt with 41, and before that an attempt at 40 and so on.

Challenge accepted

 

[foscock]

Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing

• Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
  1. sets a topic directing offliners where to start and target
  2. recruits players to attend
  3. ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
  4. shows up to the battle themselves
  5. leads the attack

Goober, are you gonna ban yourself when you dig Awesomia?

 

[Goober Pyle]

Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing

• Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
  1. sets a topic directing offliners where to start and target
  2. recruits players to attend
  3. ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
  4. shows up to the battle themselves
  5. leads the attack

Goober, are you gonna ban yourself when you dig Awesomia?

If there are tickets complaining about those battles they’ll be treated the same as any others ( though I’ll ask other team members to review any that involve me)

 

[Kidd Kalypso]

While it was more or less the policy in effect for the speed world, that I felt the need to hesitate with regards to the speed world multi prompted me to push this out early in this way, appreciating the opportunity to solicit feedback in advance of rolling it out fully.

So, are you actually soliciting feedback in advance of rolling out fully?
Seems to me that you are rolling it out fully either way. At least that is what I am inferring by your statement.
By all means, roll it out in the silly speed world's......those only last for a few weeks or something.
But for the the real world's? nahhh.....not needed.

 

[Goober Pyle]

So, are you actually soliciting feedback in advance of rolling out fully?
Seems to me that you are rolling it out fully either way. At least that is what I am inferring by your statement.
By all means, roll it out in the silly speed world's......those only last for a few weeks or something.
But for the the real world's? nahhh.....not needed.

This feedback will be considered and whatever final rule is released (if any) will be modified in light of this feedback. Not everything will be incorporated of course ( many points are in conflict after all) but I figure y’all would appreciate the opportunity to have input.

It seems you’d prefer we just say
“Abusive digs will not be tolerated, offenders will be punished” and leave it at that with no one the wiser about how we’ll define abusive digs, and what kinds of punishment will flow from what kinds of activity.

I’d rather have objective public guidelines I can cite rather than appear to be using the ban hammer capriciously.

 

[Goober Pyle]

Um, this is like 6 years too late, you already lost most interest in battles, and the game. A multi now would actually be a break in the tedium. Goober, you're supposed to be balancing, not fixing problems that don't exist. Please focus on making an attack worth attending, instead of trying to justify your job with random useless rules.

Part of balancing is addressing activities that interfere with balancing, particularly digs that result in players skipping a day’s “main” battle to defend the opportunistic digs, or fill the board with 4+ attacks leading people to say “screw it, I’ll just go pick berries rather than figure out which one is the real battle.”

Right now there is little I can do to stop Ohio on LV, or NP on CO if they return to their disruptive ways of the past (and while there is a lull right now, both have histories of returning to their old ways) At the same time, “strategic multis” are a legitimate tactic I want to make clear would not be prohibited while not creating a loophole the arsonists can drive a truck through.

In the end, my goal is to be able to get the arsonists banned without being credibly accused of abusing the discretion a more general rule would afford, particularly given players like this have been around forever without getting banned, while others who were engaged in legitimate strategic digs have been unjustly punished.

 

[Annie-bell]

from goober:
In the end, my goal is to be able to get the arsonists banned without being credibly accused of abusing the discretion a more general rule would afford, particularly given players like this have been around forever without getting banned, while others who were engaged in legitimate strategic digs have been unjustly punished.

What i am sensing is there is desire to label the 1 player town digging constantly to disrupt ff's and label as abusive. And to forgive the other types of multis of past that it appears inno feels like were too harsh on? is that correct?

 

[Clever Hans]

@Syntex Why are these rules being forced upon Community when the opinions are clearly divided and multies have not been an issue on most of the worlds besides the isolated incidents?

 

[Annie-bell]

There are many type of multi diggers, different agendas, different support. From what see, there is a huge fear by inno for these one player towns to cause problems for ff's in various worlds. Tho i do agree those one player towns digging (ie ohio or pumpkin) i personally don think would cause end of worlds

However, there are players that use underhanded multi digs as way to alter games in worlds. Being in 10 of the active 12 .en worlds there are few of us out there that have a birds eye view of how what happens in one world with what most would consider underhanded tatics .. and not jsut talking multis, usually combined with stealing, market theft, offensive saloons, multi accounts so forth .. which if not actually stopped by inno it eventually rears its head in other worlds. Being in so many worlds, can see groups of known .. um ... not as classy players ... do things in one world with their group of friends then run to other worlds and impact other worlds using the drama they caused in first world to alter peoples perceptions and gain support .. make sense? nope probably not. But know that there is some not top good gameplayers that thrive knowing that their actions are not talked about but see them wearing down good people world after world, and to me is more of threat to game then these one town multi diggers

.

 

[Annie-bell]

am just one of many that dont think there is good reason for multis, know that in long run people in community decide to not support thankfully. So ... steal huggles from canu!!! agree with your comments!

and also steals huggles from foscock .. think there are so many much bigger issues to talk about and try to fix. There are the inno - instigated issues like nugget sets, or lack of investment in game, or bugs in game or that just looking at why the game itself has shrunk to shadow of what it used to be. Secondary to that is our players make their own issues in games that cause worlds to shrink ... many different things but guess when i see people go on about things like formula changes or towers changes or rules on multis where even the groups that have to deal with the multis continually arent fussing much (tho it is tiring, uses buffs of innocent players who dont have edge of what ff to attend, and know its not about good battles), even those players arent making fuss ... havent seen anyone complain about the multis they deal with publically, just aware anytime this policy put out there then we experience more multis (just had more in juarez). But think worrying about the little things and ignoring the big things probably not wisest thing to do.