(Interim) Local Community Rule on abusive Fort Fights

Do you support fully enacting this rule?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 42.4%
  • Yes, but I would like to see changes (posted in comments)

    Votes: 7 10.6%
  • No, but perhaps with changes (posted in comments)

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • No

    Votes: 27 40.9%

  • Total voters
    66
Status
Not open for further replies.

foscock

Well-Known Member
The comment about someone needing to justify his position is spot on. The last multi that actually made anyone care was like 6-7 years ago, and yes, that includes all the dopey NP digs. They were just minor inconveniences. I guess continually adjusting tower strength to get the same predictable results isn't a long-term career path.

Merging dead worlds would be brilliant, but not gonna happen as long as inno thinks there's another euro to be milked. Vote with your feet & your wallet.

The sad thing is, right now, only 55 players have voted on this. So basically the sample size is so small it's a useless poll, but reflects how little regard players hold this game and the people behind it.
 

ScarletKisses

Well-Known Member
The following is a working draft on guidance for policing abusive Fort Fights. This rule is not entirely finalized but is being posted in advance, as it will be fully enforced on the current active Speed World, and will be applied on a case by case basis otherwise.

Outside of the speed world, until finalized, generally only warnings will be issued. In the event of flagrant excessive abuse, The West International Team reserves the right to take such actions it deems appropriate to the situation.


Howdy Cowboys and Cowgirls,

The declaration of Abusive Fort Battles is a recurring problem on The West and can result in community dissatisfaction for this game feature and the game as a whole. Therefor we have come up with a local community rule for this frustrating situation.

"Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. This can include:
  1. Intentionally interfering with other's scheduled or planned battles
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours after another battle by someone not within the same alliance, OR declaring any battles within a fixed window of time (not greater than 6 hours) established by alliances representing a majority of regular fort fighters for a recurring series of battles that are not part of that series of battles.
    • Declaring any battles within 3 hours before or 2 hours after an Awesomia battle organized by The West Team.
  2. Declaring excessive numbers of "strategic multi" battles within a 1 hour window
    Generally >2 battles by the same player/town/alliance
  3. Declaring excessive numbers of battles in a 24 hours period
    • Declaring any battles within 6 hours of the previous battle when 4 or more battles are already scheduled,
    • OR, the same player declaring 3 or more battles in a 24 hours period,
    • OR, the same town/alliance declaring 4 or more battles in a 24 hours period.
  4. 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
    • When a player repeatedly declares battles lacking these features, the community may report these battles as abusive regardless of whether they conflict with other battles. Whether or not action is taken with regards to the battle, the ticket history will be considered when contemplating action on future battles.

Mitigating factors may include:
  1. Events that reward event currency, or quests that reward substantial awards for Fort Battle participation
    During these circumstances, no battle dug when there are no other battles during the same "quarter day" shall be punished (00:00-06:00, 06:00-12:00, 12:00-18:00, and 18:00-00:00), though they may be rescheduled to create a 3h gap to an earlier battle.
  2. Repeated failed "strategic multi" battles
    Each time an alliance attempts to employ the strategic multi tactic and fails to capture any fort while turning out >10 attackers on at least one of the battles, they shall be permitted an additional simultaneous attack in their next attempt.
  3. Compelling argument for the legitimate purpose, reasonable mistake, or exceptional circumstances for an otherwise abusive battle

These rules are unable to cover every eventuality.

The West Team will make decisions in any situation not covered by these measures.


What can you do?
In case you notice Abusive Fort Battles, please contact our support team as soon as possible. Always use the "Contests & Fort Battles" category to report such an incident with the correct World selection.

It is encouraged that the community coordinate to avoid the filing of multiple redundant tickets — only one ticket per abusive battle will be considered, redundant tickets may themselves be considered abusive.


What will we do?
  • The West Team will analyze the situation and take appropriate steps as required. Usually when a world first faces such a problem we are going to consider increasing the declaration cost for battles within a certain time period; these changes will be always announced.
  • In the case the world has already have such settings applied and the problem persists, we reserve the possibility to warn and punish the players who are involved in the abuse.
  • Also, The West Team may (at its sole discretion) cancel or reschedule Fort Battles which are considered Abusive Fort Battles.

Rescheduling battles
  • A battle may be rescheduled only if there are at least 6 hours before the start.
  • When a battle was cancelled or rescheduled it is announced via official channels:
    • in the world's saloon chat via Henry;
    • in this thread: Cancelled and rescheduled Fort Battles
  • Please note that we are not a 24/7 support system, therefore it may happen that we will not be able to react in timely manner and reschedule battles. We are sorry for these situations in advance.


We hope you like these changes! Please if you have any feedback or questions feel free to ask it here or contact us!

Your The West Team
Too many rules ruin the gameplay, no matter how much a few people cry for more rules. All the recent changes have contributed to the drop in people who play FFs.
Just because someone is writting long messages here slagging off people repeatedly doesnt mean thier opinion should weigh more than someone who writes less often.
Being relentless in posting so many times shouldnt make them automatically right
 

lulumcnoob

Well-Known Member
Too many rules ruin the gameplay, no matter how much a few people cry for more rules.
All games require rules. Lots of rules, and we have a story/adventure game - few rules and we have a sandbox/role-playing game.

I don't actually know what type of game The-West is anymore, so it's hard to say where the line should be drawn - the social aspect is the only thing that keeps players logging in now.
I do know, however, that every world that doesn't have sensible digging agreements for mitigating abusive spam digs, has died and are no longer playable for me as a PvP-er.

It's also actually okay for these worlds to die, it's the natural conclusion to playing for domination.
It's not okay, though, to keep these worlds in a zombified state for years and years because the next world then gets fewer players, and the next fewer yet, until we have what we have today; one viable old world that broke out of the cycle, one temporary world that lasts for 1 year until the next world is opened, and a lot of dead worlds that you can't get an enjoyable experience on.
All the recent changes have contributed to the drop in people who play FFs.
In which world(s) specifically? I'm interested, since Westforts indicates FF numbers are either stable or increased in prime time, when there's no multis - off prime's look decent on the active world too.
If you have already killed off the PvP on your world, and it's sitting in a state where it really should be closed, then no, it probably won't revive the entire fort fighting scene for you.
I'd suggest the balancing efforts are increasing attendances on active worlds, however overall more people stop playing because of the state of the game than we are gaining from the team trying to manually balance battles - which is just one aspect of the many things that are broken in The-West.

Just because someone is writting long messages here slagging off people repeatedly doesnt mean thier opinion should weigh more than someone who writes less often. Being relentless in posting so many times shouldnt make them automatically right
Well you don't even have a counter-argument, just "rules = bad, I'll do what I want despite anyone else" which is obviously rubbish.
at least Vic and Fos et al. tried and made valid points, even though I still disagree, largely because we don't have a strong enough playerbase to be anarchists anymore and I still can't understand how not being able to take any discretional action against a 1-player town spamming multis, with the direct intention of lowering the quality of other battles, is beneficial to the game.
It's called griefing and most games ban you for it.

This rule isn't really about "tactical" multis on the trash worlds that use them, which seems to be the big mis-understanding that's bringing out some rather defensive people for some reason, but it is worth noting at this point that other servers use harsh anti-multi protections making it impossible to declare multiple battles within a given time-frame, we do not. Anarchy away if it's your world's thing and you still have anyone left who's willing to play that game.
 
Last edited:

ScarletKisses

Well-Known Member
Well firstly lumumnoob I didnt say no rules I clearly said TOO MANY Rules ruin gameplay IMO which for the record is just as valid as anyone elses Thank you very much.
yes i hear that you no longer wish to play other worlds apart from Colo but there are many who do and enjoy those worlds. and they even manage to have FFs they enjoy, so excuse me for not caring what your opinion is on them :)
I have no controlling interest in any world. and havent for years so i would love to know which worlds i killed or is that you just spouting roumors that you heard :D
So sorry my post doesnt meet with your approval i didnt know that it had to pass your standards to be valid!! lol
I didnt feel the need to go into deepth as others already said anything i would say, particularly Vics posts
Again I dont need you to approve of my posts or to give them validation as i said my opinion needs no explanation to you or anyone else they are as valid as anyone elses
Also i am not a fan of writing huge essays for everyone to read unlike some here who seem to like sound of thier own voice.
and lastly dont try to put words into my mouth by implying that i said i will do what i want I never said that or implyed it.
But i do find non scheduled battles, Tatical digs far more exciting than the sterile boring battles that some enjoy ;)
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Irony is though, it's mostly negative comments in this topic rather than positive, and yet "Support" is higher when it comes to the poll even though very slightly.
(Not to mention the misunderstanding of some people)

And yea regardless of "pro-Anarchy" people's claims.. mostly anarchy is what caused the most damage to the game rather than not.

It’s been a saloon topic on all worlds (though was replaced on Fairbank due to the German job titles there)
I suppose Login pop-up would prove more useful as majority never even opens the Saloon but I'm not sure if you were able to.

Either way I don't believe that attendance is bad at all.
 
Last edited:

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
A verbose rule is far worse than no rule in my opinion. There are so many caveats in what is being proposed that I am not sure what changes, if any, are actually being made to the present position. In fact I see implementation of the proposal as potentially generating even more argument than hitherto. This strikes me as a solution seeking a problem.

To me the most sensible words in the proposal are:

"These rules are unable to cover every eventuality."

So why have so much detail? Instead, change the paradigm and regulate digging more effectively.

For example, as others have proposed in the past, I have never understood what Inno's real objection is to simply writing code that prevents another battle being dug say 4 hrs (or whatever) after the prior one as it will:

1. eliminate immediately all multis, intentional or accidental.
2. eliminate the need for agreements on any world unless something is put into place that extends the 4 hr (or whatever) period. (There is not the player base on any world I imagine that can sustain 6 ffs in a 24 hr period for long.)
3. minimizes the opportunity for rogue players to cause disruption in one fell swoop.

If there is a burning desire to do tactical multis, and I see very, very few of these, then perhaps the player should approach the mod. asking for permission (stating forts and times) and the mod. can then dig the ffs on behalf of the player if the request is validated.

To me there are a lot more serious wrongs with fort-fighting than what this initiative is addressing. Re-arranging deck-chairs on the Titanic didn't stop it sinking.
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
Irony is though, it's mostly negative comments in this topic rather than positive, and yet "Support" is higher when it comes to the poll even though very slightly.
(Not to mention the misunderstanding of some people)

And yea regardless of "pro-Anarchy" people's claims.. mostly anarchy is what caused the most damage to the game rather than not.


I suppose Login pop-up would prove more useful as majority never even opens the Saloon but I'm not sure if you were able to.

Either way I don't believe that attendance is bad at all.

Actually Inno not spending any time advertising or listening to the player base a decade or more ago and since is what killed it .. and then V2 made it a lot worse, messing with duleing, forts, uber sets.. Union etc ... THATS whats killed it not a a few multis from time to time jesus..

What is it with people these days ? ... .... everyone backs up the man and being regulated now it seems, like people cant handle anything outside an ever smaller regulated and controlled box...

Lock me down n regulate me harder Daddy ........ :no:
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Irony is though, it's mostly negative comments in this topic rather than positive, and yet "Support" is higher when it comes to the poll even though very slightly.
(Not to mention the misunderstanding of some people)

And yea regardless of "pro-Anarchy" people's claims.. mostly anarchy is what caused the most damage to the game rather than not.


I suppose Login pop-up would prove more useful as majority never even opens the Saloon but I'm not sure if you were able to.

Either way I don't believe that attendance is bad at all.


As this was at a more preliminary stage seeking feedback I figured using the forum would make more sense. If/when a formal rule for all worlds is ready I will push for the team to do a login poll either before or shortly after it is announced.

Honestly this was received a lot more negatively than I expected, and I believe @Oddersfield captured it best. Ultimately I wanted to remove as much discretion from myself as I reasonably could to avoid accusations of bias. Instead I should learn to have faith that I can earn the trust necessary to exercise some discretion without compromising my player liaison role.
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
As this was at a more preliminary stage seeking feedback I figured using the forum would make more sense. If/when a formal rule for all worlds is ready I will push for the team to do a login poll either before or shortly after it is announced.

Honestly this was received a lot more negatively than I expected, and I believe @Oddersfield captured it best. Ultimately I wanted to remove as much discretion from myself as I reasonably could to avoid accusations of bias. Instead I should learn to have faith that I can earn the trust necessary to exercise some discretion without compromising my player liaison role.

Goober,

I did think very seriously about ever posting my comments in the manner I did - and I did think about adding some more words. I really should have done the latter at the time. So here is the extra bit ... not directly germane to the thread either ... but sort of a eulogy to you..

I really do appreciate the efforts you are making. I may question your sanity for trying to do what you are :), but nonetheless heartfelt appreciation are still in order. It seems to me like trying to find a needle in a haystack - and in a parallel universe you cannot see. Whether people agree with everything you suggest or do is irrelevant. Anything that stimulates discussion and friendly exchange of opinions is worthwhile: it can only lead to better things. Remember: you cannot please all of the players all of the time, so don't worry. Slap me down if you want to: I can take it :)

I understand that you can only work within the constraints Inno put on you - just push gently on the boundaries and see how far you can expand them. 100% with you in wanting to see mods not be put in no win positions in some of these disputes that go on.

Again, thanks mate.

Keep up the good work
 

Victor Kruger

Well-Known Member
Just an observation. We have moderators whos job it is to police the game :up: ... thats what the million report options everywhere are for. Look there goes Al now...duck :boone:

Players who cross worlds, hold, grudges or try to impose their own version of the game on others should go take a long hard look in the mirror, and then a running jump. No one needs saving from anyone and never have. Or better still apply to become a moderator if one feels the need to serve the community so badly as some have done over the years or currently do, like Goober here busting i think his ass to help.

Its a great way to give something back and as we all know ... its good to give .. i can almost hear the adulation already..

Now thats a GREAT IDEA & I reckon should go in the hall of fame for brainfarts :-D
 

RaiderTr

Well-Known Member
Actually Inno not spending any time advertising or listening to the player base a decade or more ago and since is what killed it .. and then V2 made it a lot worse, messing with duleing, forts, uber sets.. Union etc ... THATS whats killed it not a a few multis from time to time jesus..

What is it with people these days ? ... .... everyone backs up the man and being regulated now it seems, like people cant handle anything outside an ever smaller regulated and controlled box...

Lock me down n regulate me harder Daddy ........ :no:
We all know that.
But they won't do, or at least allow anything big.

So the "solution" is.. either leave the game and its forums.. or..

I mean I'm not playing the game for months for various reasons but still I will support an experienced community person which we didn't have for years.

RIP Nyborg
 

ScarletKisses

Well-Known Member
As this was at a more preliminary stage seeking feedback I figured using the forum would make more sense. If/when a formal rule for all worlds is ready I will push for the team to do a login poll either before or shortly after it is announced.

Honestly this was received a lot more negatively than I expected, and I believe @Oddersfield captured it best. Ultimately I wanted to remove as much discretion from myself as I reasonably could to avoid accusations of bias. Instead I should learn to have faith that I can earn the trust necessary to exercise some discretion without compromising my player liaison role.
I am sorry if you feel under appreciated that certainly is not the case. I think even those of us who dont agree fully with the proposal as it is are still very grateful to you for engaging and trying to find solutions that hopefully work for everyone.

I just dont want to see people witch hunted for not obeying what some deem thier game.
I worry about the setrile enviroment that may cause where some are scared to dig for fear of others screaming multi and then banned when sometimes its just as simple as language barrier
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
I am sorry if you feel under appreciated that certainly is not the case. I think even those of us who dont agree fully with the proposal as it is are still very grateful to you for engaging and trying to find solutions that hopefully work for everyone.

I just dont want to see people witch hunted for not obeying what some deem thier game.
I worry about the setrile enviroment that may cause where some are scared to dig for fear of others screaming multi and then banned when sometimes its just as simple as language barrier
Just to be clear, banning is undesirable and would only happen for continued misbehavior after trying to coach and explain and work through any language barriers. And, as always, I will not act if no one files a ticket (though when I notice battles that are <90m apart I may elect to announce in saloon "if anyone is thinking of filing a ticket , please do it soon" -- if a battle is to be moved it is always better to do it sooner rather than later, preferably within the first 6h and avoiding any changes with <6h to go)

Also, awesomia digs will generally not be actionable except where they interfere with Henry's announced plans or add to a board that already has 4 battles

I won't fault someone for (occasionally) trying and failing; a one person town with no friends is welcome to dig every now and then so long as they aren't intentionally disruptive. If it is to be more frequent than once per week I will require they make an honest effort -- no one will be punished for a weekly, or even semi-weekly, stand-alone dig* where they rank, set a constructive topic, show up online themselves (or have arranged for someone to be there online to lead) and can show some effort to recruit and an attempt or at least availability to lead.
However, someone digging a "pointless"** dig every day or every other day and making no discernible effort to recruit more effectively, try new tactics, or otherwise improve their chances, will be required to reduce it to at most 2x per week, or even less frequently if there are multiple such players engaged in that behavior simultaneously.

* >3h from any others, not in conflict with an established schedule, and not dug while 3 other digs were already on the board
** if the player can elucidate a legitimate purpose for their behavior I will attempt to come to an arrangement that satisfies both the digger and those who are complaining about the pattern of digs
 

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
Just to be clear, banning is undesirable and would only happen for continued misbehavior after trying to coach and explain and work through any language barriers. And, as always, I will not act if no one files a ticket (though when I notice battles that are <90m apart I may elect to announce in saloon "if anyone is thinking of filing a ticket , please do it soon" -- if a battle is to be moved it is always better to do it sooner rather than later, preferably within the first 6h and avoiding any changes with <6h to go)

Also, awesomia digs will generally not be actionable except where they interfere with Henry's announced plans or add to a board that already has 4 battles

I won't fault someone for (occasionally) trying and failing; a one person town with no friends is welcome to dig every now and then so long as they aren't intentionally disruptive. If it is to be more frequent than once per week I will require they make an honest effort -- no one will be punished for a weekly, or even semi-weekly, stand-alone dig* where they rank, set a constructive topic, show up online themselves (or have arranged for someone to be there online to lead) and can show some effort to recruit and an attempt or at least availability to lead.
However, someone digging a "pointless"** dig every day or every other day and making no discernible effort to recruit more effectively, try new tactics, or otherwise improve their chances, will be required to reduce it to at most 2x per week, or even less frequently if there are multiple such players engaged in that behavior simultaneously.

* >3h from any others, not in conflict with an established schedule, and not dug while 3 other digs were already on the board
** if the player can elucidate a legitimate purpose for their behavior I will attempt to come to an arrangement that satisfies both the digger and those who are complaining about the pattern of digs
So you actively encourage players to complain and submit tickets? Gosh, why not write a whole constitution about placing a dig? If you want to have a defined time between the battles, then make it part of the game code, don't come up with pages of rules and make arbitrary decisions which would expose you to the accusations of bias.
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
So you actively encourage players to complain and submit tickets? Gosh, why not write a whole constitution about placing a dig? If you want to have a defined time between the battles, then make it part of the game code, don't come up with pages of rules and make arbitrary decisions which would expose you to the accusations of bias.
As I've said repeatedly, I work within what is possible within the local community (.net), and this market is unique with it's broad time-zone exposure -- a game mechanic that might make sense in one market might be very unwelcome in other markets (some of which have adopted local rules that entirely forbid strategic multis)
 

ScarletKisses

Well-Known Member
As I've said repeatedly, I work within what is possible within the local community (.net), and this market is unique with it's broad time-zone exposure -- a game mechanic that might make sense in one market might be very unwelcome in other markets (some of which have adopted local rules that entirely forbid strategic multis)
Goober
I am sorry but you have done nothing to allay my concerns, while you make comment that you may write in saloon quick write ticket to complain that feels very bias to me ..
Further question who decides in local community who runs that world .. I am totally against a handful of players dictaing how people can play sorry i will never get on board with that :( I have been witness to several worlds being killed this way. Look at Galv and Houston where ALL Forts are owned by same handful of people that have dictated terms for those worlds to the detriment of the other side
 

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Goober
I am sorry but you have done nothing to allay my concerns, while you make comment that you may write in saloon quick write ticket to complain that feels very bias to me ..
Further question who decides in local community who runs that world .. I am totally against a handful of players dictaing how people can play sorry i will never get on board with that :( I have been witness to several worlds being killed this way. Look at Galv and Houston where ALL Forts are owned by same handful of people that have dictated terms for those worlds to the detriment of the other side
I think there may be confusion about "local community" -- I am using it as a synonym for "market" such as ".net", ".de", ".hu", etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top