Feedback Policies for Spam Fort Battles

[Annie-Bell]

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse honestly. If so, you're doing a damn good job at keeping the act together.

It's insulting that you're writing this whilst your dear friends have consistently refused to start battles for the past year. It was more apparent a few months ago to be honest, since then there were actually still forts to be won (that are not smalls) by AR. If I recall correctly BB went on a few streaks where we attacked 10-15 times in a row. But, of course, it is our fault that motivation drops afterwards. Darth reached out to cvr, and apparantly cvr had some private stuff going on, which is understandable. I'm not sure why no one else was insisting on getting attacks going from AR's side, but it is what it is.

Hjalmar commented earlier that the level difference isn't that big, and you and him both mentioned that BB has more leadership players. That's true. Level difference in battles is about 6-8, which isn't anything amazing. What you guys seem to forget is that the recent update (January? Idk when Diggo disappeared) made it so that tanks hit hard as well. This benefits AR, since there's a consistent HP (tank) advantage of about 300k. Looking at the last battle of Artem the difference in avg dmg was 700 for AR, 850 for BB. Going one decent battle further, 20th of May, it was 827 BB and 867 AR. Feel free to look up other battles to, I'm pretty sure the differences will stay the same.

Other than that I am aware BB is very awful to be in, that's why I left too. Artem sucks bigtime, Darth is British and the only bright light is Bonnie Lassie whom one day I will pass in level. For Hjalmar, correct me if I'm wrong, the reason the Danes left was that they didn't want to be pushed to one side in battles (read: they did not feel like attacking 10 times in a row which is understandable) and they got annoyed by us asking people (not just them) to go HP. What you end up with now is a lot of neutrals (not just the Danes) going full defense. And since AR doesn't attack, it ends up in a consistent slaughterhouse.

But, again, these conversations happened 6 months ago as well. You can go through my post history, and I'm pretty sure some on the AZ world forum as well, and find the exact same sentences. I'm sure I (as leader back then) could've done more too, but assuming that we have tried nothing and it is all our fault is disingenuous. You're all sitting on 75%+ winrates, enjoying it. Battles didn't die over the past month because of Artem digging multis, they died 8 months ago when you lot decided attacking was less fun than winning 10 defenses in a row.

what i did say was i was in both houston and galv, posting often that BB need consistent ff's and was actively posting to join your side, not AR side. I am just a player in AZ and not even on that team, but thought was good for game overall if someone did, as not many were when migrations opened up. I took initative, Then saw people say dont go help BB from BB. Anyways i know me saying that our ff leaders cant dig med or larges cause there is none, made suggestion talking with leader. Small available to dig but people will be left out, which is negative impact on attitudes of actual players.

No the difference isnt much but because there is a decision to exclude the big damagers by digging later, not earlier it is hard to see. I know i have talked in great length wih BB damagers and why cant be utilized is its 2 am and they are not being protected by tanks.

But im just chattting on, yes nothing has changed. Never will.

 

[Syntex]

@Syntex @mnnielsen Does this forum have a forum moderator or posts from Annie-Bell like those above, where she calls names, slanders and lies about other players to spread her propaganda, are to be tolerated? Just to know so that we can stop posting and let her run it as her private forum like she does with some worlds where she dominates the FFs.

p.s. The fact you tolerate such toxic behaviour says a lot about quality of support nowadays.

Please use the Report button for any posts which you think should not remain on the forum and our moderator team will review it. Thank you!

 

[Sambee]

I've done a big clean up, if I've missed anything let me know.
Remember, this is a game and there's no need to be toxic towards each other. In-game rivalries are encouraged but maybe if you try to work together, as humans, you'll see a much better outcome than if you point the blame at each other. I don't want to see any more personal attacks otherwise further actions will be taken.

 

[asdf124]

I've done a big clean up, if I've missed anything let me know.
Remember, this is a game and there's no need to be toxic towards each other. In-game rivalries are encouraged but maybe if you try to work together, as humans, you'll see a much better outcome than if you point the blame at each other. I don't want to see any more personal attacks otherwise further actions will be taken.

Who are you calling a human? Humans are the ones who gotten a lot of species extinct, they even invented nuclear bombs. Don't use derogatory language against anyone

Guess this just tells you how bad, frustrating one side is with one other. The truth is, most swedish players were recruited before they even gotten to Arizona. A town was made just for them.

And they even dare say: " We are just better than you at recruiting."

I still don't see any problems when there hasn't been any fort fights for a certain amount of time. And yes, if the player was able to attend each fort, they shouldn't even be looked at as a problem.

At least one month since the last real battle(none awesomia) should suffice, even if the player does 12 fort fights per day with a gap of 2 hours for a week.

 

[Keinan Walker]

Appreciate you for making efforts to make fort fights more enjoyable. Thank you!

 

[ScarletKisses]

What's point of asking for feedback AFTER you already made changes.. Smack of dictator Inno
pretty much all the changes you have made in last few years have done nothing to make Fort Fights better.
In fact in some cases its made things even harder. So disappointed

 

[Keinan Walker]

What's point of asking for feedback AFTER you already made changes.. Smack of dictator Inno
pretty much all the changes you have made in last few years have done nothing to make Fort Fights better.
In fact in some cases its made things even harder. So disappointed

Enlighten us, what can they do to make it better? Instead of complaining everywhere, give actual suggestions. From what I've seen on every world you've played in, all you've ever done is complain and cause problems instead of actually leading and making things happen. For once, tell us exactly what needs to be done.
This is actually the case with most people on here. Everyone just likes to complain and moan about things rather than give constructive feedback. It's like people just want to look for topics to disagree with. The devs are working hard and they're open to suggestions, so instead of complaining and calling them names like "dictator" which by the way, you also used against me Scarlet (simply because I gave a suggestion for more balanced fights), enlighten us with your wisdom.

 

[Harriet Oleson]

There were these discussion and poll :
Proposed community rule on abusive digs
(Interim) Local community rule on abusive fort fights

The "yes" had a majority : only 42.4% though, while 10.6% answered "yes but with modifications", 6.1% "no but perhaps with changes" and 40.9% answered "no". Only 66 voters too. So in the end, mixed results and with an amount of voters not necessarily very representative. Maybe before creating something official, more discussions or a poll in game would have been good to better see what the majority thinks and could please more types of play.

Actually, I thought multi too close to other battles etc were already forbiden lol, I mean it has already happened in Kansas that a battle was re-scheduled by the team cause too close to another one, and this without the digger approval. If it was already like that and the idea is just to make it more official, better more transparency than none.

To give my opinion about this : I'm not a fan of restrictions which aren't game implemented. But well, in any case here the restrictions seem super large when we read them ... I think it could help in lots of problematic cases while not prevent several battles per day in a strategical way if needed. Only abuses seem to be mentioned here.

 

[DeletedUser15368]

the restrictions seem super large when we read them

Only abuses seem to be mentioned here.

The restrictions are specifically for abuse, and nothing else.

We, as players, don't get to vote on game rules - this is now more of a game-wide rule than a local policy, as it previously was.

 

[Harriet Oleson]

?
Of course restrictions are made especially against abuses, but if I precised that, it's because there are complaints about these rules : if all players considered all these rules as legitimate, there wouldn't be any complaint. And here, I'm just saying they seem legitimate to me, it was a way to say there was, in my opinion, no "abuse" in the denounced abuses, if I can say it like that ...

As for a larger vote, I thought it could have been good but I thought these rules were only for .net and it was a follow up to the previous vote. Not a global thing including all servers. My bad.

 

[Goober Pyle]

?
Of course restrictions are made especially against abuses, but if I precised that, it's because there are complaints about these rules : if all players considered all these rules as legitimate, there wouldn't be any complaint. And here, I'm just saying they seem legitimate to me, it was a way to say there was, in my opinion, no "abuse" in the denounced abuses, if I can say it like that ...

As for a larger vote, I thought it could have been good but I thought these rules were only for .net and it was a follow up to the previous vote. Not a global thing including all servers. My bad.

The backstory here is I worked through the system to try to get some standardization and transparency around how abusive battles were handled. The history had been all over the place (people had been banned in the past for things that were frequently tolerated with not much rhyme or reason while rescheduling was haphazardly applied).

At all times "abusive" battles have been forbidden, but they were ill-defined and gave an appearance of being at the whim of supporter who received the ticket.

I developed this guidance as a possible local interim rule. When it became clear these abuses were occurring frequently on speed worlds I pushed them out there first, where it was well received.

I then presented it as a possible rule to be applied on all of .net. The feedback was such that I elected not to push it further, but left it standing as informal guidance -- the rules were not binding, but when there were complaints about battles being abusive players could cite it as a safe harbor for why their dig was not abusive, and supporters could point to it as a way players could dig free of worries of their battles being declared abusive.

I left it at that and didn't pursue the matter further.

The powers that be decided to weigh in on the matter on their own accord (presumably when looking for ways to handle abusive battles in other markets). They determined what we had been doing here on .net was worth giving a formal blessing to and promoting to other markets.




Editing to quote my last word on the matter before the formal rule came out:

Well, the survey is over. The result is one that could reasonably be used to justify almost any course of action.

My opinion is I should go back to the drawing board to draft a simpler, shorter, clearer statement of rules for public consumption and seperate internal guidance, and then proceed to sit on them unless and until a more pressing active situation comes back to the forefront and break it out only on the impacted world(s). In the meantime, handle the tickets that come in as before, with discretion and input from the Team.

 

[Kidd Kalypso]

Perhaps you should have not even started this clusterf*** of a rule? Just a thought.

 

[Oddersfield]

I've done a big clean up, if I've missed anything let me know.
Remember, this is a game and there's no need to be toxic towards each other. In-game rivalries are encouraged but maybe if you try to work together, as humans, you'll see a much better outcome than if you point the blame at each other. I don't want to see any more personal attacks otherwise further actions will be taken.

Personally I found the stuff that was edited out here far more entertaining than the dry sanitized officially-approved narrative that has been left behind. I don't even understand the new rules as they are full of vague, and therefore meaningless, terms: the different sections seem contradictory to each other.

However, new rules or no new rules, ff'g still sucks on most worlds. I don't see that these changes, whether they have merit or not, will make any difference to the real issues. On some worlds 2 ffs a month would actually constitute multis!

 

[Oddersfield]

I hear that this policy is already in tatters as forts are being dug at intervals just outside the "generally 3 hr. window" whatever that really means on a particular world. The trouble with guidelines is that they are so easy to avoid and evade when a small number of players don't want to embrace the spirit of the game.

If I dug 4 ffs in a day at 3 hr 1 min intervals, I would (a) comply with all aspects of these guidelines (as far as I can see) and (b) annoy an awful lot of people , I have no intent of doing either but what is to stop me?

 

[ScarletKisses]

I hear that this policy is already in tatters as forts are being dug at intervals just outside the "generally 3 hr. window" whatever that really means on a particular world. The trouble with guidelines is that they are so easy to avoid and evade when a small number of players don't want to embrace the spirit of the game.

If I dug 4 ffs in a day at 3 hr 1 min intervals, I would (a) comply with all aspects of these guidelines (as far as I can see) and (b) annoy an awful lot of people , I have no intent of doing either but what is to stop me?

and thats exactly whats happening in some worlds

 

[Oddersfield]

and thats exactly whats happening in some worlds

I know, Scar - hence the wording of my opening paragraph. I was actually waiting for some constructive response from Inno on the matter.

A few weeks ago, I had a discussion with a moderator (who I will not name for obvious reasons). Basically I was told that enforcement of guidelines was at the discretion of each moderator and was not uniformly enforced. No more to be said on the subject really other than it is a crap shoot. As mods are also players I have never actually understood how they can be impartial when asked to discipline a player on one world when they are a fellow town or allaince member on another.

 

[Keinan Walker]

I hear that this policy is already in tatters as forts are being dug at intervals just outside the "generally 3 hr. window" whatever that really means on a particular world. The trouble with guidelines is that they are so easy to avoid and evade when a small number of players don't want to embrace the spirit of the game.

If I dug 4 ffs in a day at 3 hr 1 min intervals, I would (a) comply with all aspects of these guidelines (as far as I can see) and (b) annoy an awful lot of people , I have no intent of doing either but what is to stop me?

Nah bro you can't. You're breaking the guidelines by doing that, unless you're actively recruiting, ranking, arranging a leader and making efforts to create a proper fight for ALL four ff's that you dug. Which, obviously, nobody who has a life has time to do. So if you dig 4 times, even with a 3 hour 1 min interval, and failing to do all of the above, you're still breaking the rules and deserve to be rightfully punished (on top of having your battles canceled) since your actions interfere with others' gameplay - as in, the gameplay of people who actually are making an effort to make their fort fights worth it.

To quote the rules for you again since you clearly ignore to read properly just to be negative here: "Spam Fort Battles" are those battles declaration, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others."

To further highlight some important words so you don't end up ignoring it again, "discernible legitimate purpose", "interference with the gameplay of others".

I swear some of you just come here to be negative and talk negatively to devs/staff who are actually working towards making things better for us, while some of the people on here contribute nothing and just complain in the forums. It's sad.

Hopefully this response is 'constructive' enough for you.

 

[Oddersfield]

So why is it happening if it cannot?

8 ffs in 2 days all by the same alliance with 3 more dug at the moment. All but 1 ff dug by the same player. No of attackers ranges from 0 to 9 with the average being 3.75.

 

[Keinan Walker]

So why is it happening if it cannot?

8 ffs in 2 days all by the same alliance with 3 more dug at the moment. All but 1 ff dug by the same player. No of attackers ranges from 0 to 9 with the average being 3.75.

That should be taken care of by them, report the people who are doing this, and the mods will be expected to hand them a warning at the very minimum.

 

[Oddersfield]

That should be taken care of by them, report the people who are doing this, and the mods will be expected to hand them a warning at the very minimum.

Several people (not including me) say they have reported it ..... so either they are all strangers to the truth or Inno does nothing (or appears to do nothing) despite their rhetoric.