Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
Make that 14 digs by the same person in 3 days, many of those either multies or less than 3h between the fights.
Last edited:
Feedback Policies for Spam Fort Battles
- Thread starter Syntex
- Start date
Make that 14 digs by the same person in 3 days, many of those either multies or less than 3h between the fights.
Keinan Walker
Member
Then this should be punished and I think mods just need to be more active with taking decisions on these. Clearly breaking the rules.
Oddersfield
Well-Known Member
So Keinan are you going to retract and apologize for this statement you made about me, now that you have ended up agreeing with me?
Seems to me that Inno don't understand and implement their own (unworkable) guidelines.
JWillow
Well-Known Member
If someone is spreading the battles out to the reasonable 3 hour intervals, then could the player not be an achievement hunter?
Yes non competitive battles are annoyances, but inno did add fort battle achievements on April 25 that will take years on an active world get, on more deadish worlds with no daily battles even more.
Now to have 0 attackers is not helping any but defenders, does that happen often or does the digger make it to 90% of the digs?
Last question, on this world, is there a prime time set up by the two major alliances for a regular daily battle? If the world doesn't have regular battles, is it really surprising if a player doesn't pay attention about annoying players.
I will admit I have no clue about this world, but just curious if anyone knows the motivation.
Yes non competitive battles are annoyances, but inno did add fort battle achievements on April 25 that will take years on an active world get, on more deadish worlds with no daily battles even more.
Now to have 0 attackers is not helping any but defenders, does that happen often or does the digger make it to 90% of the digs?
Last question, on this world, is there a prime time set up by the two major alliances for a regular daily battle? If the world doesn't have regular battles, is it really surprising if a player doesn't pay attention about annoying players.
I will admit I have no clue about this world, but just curious if anyone knows the motivation.
Keinan Walker
Member
I mean, these guys delete posts in this forum thread faster than they hand out warnings/bans in the game for people obviously breaking their newly implemented rule, so I'll go ahead and apologize, and agree with you that even though the rules DO make complete sense and were much needed, there is a clear lack of enforcement if people are continuing to break it and keep getting away with it.
That doesn't change my stance on the fact that these rules are welcome. They just need to be enforced better at this point.
My apologies for the lack of earlier action as regards LV's recent activity -- there were some internal missed communications and I have been fairly inactive of late with the end of the school year.
The activity on LV has largely been in technical compliance with the rules, and the achievement hunting does offer a discernible purpose. However, ultimately the overall pattern does constitute abuse and intervention is being taken.
In this instance one dig has been cancelled, another rescheduled, and a forum topic has been posted noting a temporary restriction: "Until the next event begins players/towns/alliances here will be restricted to 1 dig per 36h"
There is greater tolerance for multiple same party digs during an event with currency rewards, but after the event concludes activity will be monitored and should abuse continue it will be handled.
The activity on LV has largely been in technical compliance with the rules, and the achievement hunting does offer a discernible purpose. However, ultimately the overall pattern does constitute abuse and intervention is being taken.
In this instance one dig has been cancelled, another rescheduled, and a forum topic has been posted noting a temporary restriction: "Until the next event begins players/towns/alliances here will be restricted to 1 dig per 36h"
There is greater tolerance for multiple same party digs during an event with currency rewards, but after the event concludes activity will be monitored and should abuse continue it will be handled.
I will remind you that all enforcement actions require a properly filed ticket (timely and in the fort battle category). Not all filed tickets will result in an action, but tickets are saved and tracked and when patterns emerge that are abusive they will be addressed.
Oddersfield
Well-Known Member
That was a long-winded way of saying, "Guilty as charged", Goober 
And does Inno's administrative system really fall to bits simply because it is the end of the school year?
What happens after the next event ends then? Is the restriction being re-imposed or is it back to square one?
And does Inno's administrative system really fall to bits simply because it is the end of the school year? What happens after the next event ends then? Is the restriction being re-imposed or is it back to square one?
Lyrinx.
Well-Known Member
It happens mate, at least you could fix the issue. Hopefully nobody gonna spam dig ever again. Majority of players wanted this rule, so I can't understand why they are against it now. Maybe I'm wrong and old...
Whoever did this, please check this file's name on google and enjoy it.
That was a long-winded way of saying, "Guilty as charged", Goober
It takes a confluence of unlikely events, but that can happen from time to time
The situation will be monitored, the prior pattern will be taken into account, and the current intervention will be considered to have been fair warning that similar patterns of digs may result in a ban.
DeletedUser15368
Now that I know what world you're actually all talking about, it's worth noting that LV went from 6th best with battles every 2 days or so, to literally the lowest quality Fort fights that could be considered "battles", with an average of one every day over the last 30 days. In the last month, LV battles have been completely killed. This indicates that the team waited way too long to intervene, but I was under the impression that there was more than just the MVP Goober on the team (in fact we have one of the largest support teams in the whole of InnoGames, but I feel that the slow action makes LV a great case study).
LV didn't have high quality battles before the spam, but let's see how it goes post-intervention.
Before Ohio from Blood Moon:
After Ohio from Blood Moon:
Anyway, you can all see the data with your own eyes, and observe the negative impact spam-battles have on overall quality of a world, and why the policy was introduced - and it's inevitable that baddies will test the boundaries.
LV didn't have high quality battles before the spam, but let's see how it goes post-intervention.
Before Ohio from Blood Moon:
After Ohio from Blood Moon:
Anyway, you can all see the data with your own eyes, and observe the negative impact spam-battles have on overall quality of a world, and why the policy was introduced - and it's inevitable that baddies will test the boundaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keinan Walker
Member
Damn, Ohio is STILL going? He is literally the reason I quit LV a while backNow that I know what world you're actually all talking about, it's worth noting that LV went from 6th best with battles every 2 days or so, to literally the lowest quality Fort fights that could be considered "battles", with an average of one every day over the last 30 days. In the last month, LV battles have been completely killed. This indicates that the team waited way too long to intervene, but I was under the impression that there was more than just the MVP Goober on the team (in fact we have one of the largest support teams in the whole of InnoGames, but I feel that the slow action makes LV a great case study).
LV didn't have high quality battles before the spam, but let's see how it goes post-intervention.
Before Ohio from Blood Moon:
After Ohio from Blood Moon:
Anyway, you can all see the data with your own eyes, and observe the negative impact spam-battles have on overall quality of a world, and why the policy was introduced - and it's inevitable that baddies will test the boundaries.
While I 100% support the new rules, clearly the mods have lagged behind in enforcing them... and that's what needs to change. +1 to this.
1Big Chief
Well-Known Member
Why not just put a (countdown) timer so that it blocks one from declaring in range of any other battles
The same way you control a player after a duel who goes to sleep.. still duelable during the hour .. timer just reversed
Another problem is the system doesn't show a battle & someone digs.. then suddenly there's 2 battles
Over 10 years and this is still not fixed.. hmm
Personally .. I couldn't care much.. sometimes an alliance is just too strong.. always the same peeps too
If they have way too many players.. with much better bought/nugget gear .. hitting 2 smalls is a tactic.. and not a crime
Fix the timer.. and let that rule how you want it.. takes the bickering out of it
The same way you control a player after a duel who goes to sleep.. still duelable during the hour .. timer just reversed
Another problem is the system doesn't show a battle & someone digs.. then suddenly there's 2 battles
Over 10 years and this is still not fixed.. hmm
Personally .. I couldn't care much.. sometimes an alliance is just too strong.. always the same peeps too
If they have way too many players.. with much better bought/nugget gear .. hitting 2 smalls is a tactic.. and not a crime
Fix the timer.. and let that rule how you want it.. takes the bickering out of it
Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
@Syntex @mnnielsen @Goober Pyle
I find it quite interesting that many here claim how this game needs a new blood and more players.
Yet, when we do get new players that just want to play a game, even on a dead world like Kansas, they are literally being cancelled.
Now, Goober has introduced fort digging restrictions on Kansas against a town of new players which don´t dig daily and usually there are no other digs placed on these days. Also, digs are not violating any instructions regarding time space between the fights and number of daily fights from original announcement. While the first dig of "noob diggers", how some hats in big alliance call them, attracted 16 vs 22 (quite good for otherwise dead world), other fights were unbalanced with both big alliances signing up together.
So, it seems to me that this "Spam dig rule" is used to control who is allowed to dig and to reserve this right for the select few.
I find it quite interesting that many here claim how this game needs a new blood and more players.
Yet, when we do get new players that just want to play a game, even on a dead world like Kansas, they are literally being cancelled.
Now, Goober has introduced fort digging restrictions on Kansas against a town of new players which don´t dig daily and usually there are no other digs placed on these days. Also, digs are not violating any instructions regarding time space between the fights and number of daily fights from original announcement. While the first dig of "noob diggers", how some hats in big alliance call them, attracted 16 vs 22 (quite good for otherwise dead world), other fights were unbalanced with both big alliances signing up together.
So, it seems to me that this "Spam dig rule" is used to control who is allowed to dig and to reserve this right for the select few.
ScarletKisses
Well-Known Member
I could not agree more .. Its felt for a while if you don't fall in with what some very vocal players who spend hours talking people on side, decide for game for all. While is so wrong on so many levels. Just because some talk a LOT doesn't mean they talk for everyone or that should mean they get own way..
If you find 4 daily digs with 1-3 attackers a positive contribution to the community I believe you are in the smallest of minorities
Clever Hans
Well-Known Member
The most daily digs I can see on the battle schedule is 3, usually 2 and some days with no digs whatsover.
Plus first two digs were also balanced until both big alliances started to defend together, probably instructed by the same hats that also spammed you to intervene.
Is better contribution to the community on dead world sleeping in hotel coz there is otherwise no daily dig?
If the two primary drivers of this wish to alternate days and bring in a number of attackers then they would be in compliance with the temporary restriction and that would indeed be a healthy development.
As is, since august 7, 18 battles have completed
Of those 6 were No Show digs, 5 had four or fewer attackers, 5 were cancelled for policy violations.
Two more were scheduled before the policy was announced. One by a repeat no-show digger, the other by level 34 player in a one person town who has "recruited" all of 2 players, not set a topic, and as of T-35m was not online or present at the fort
As is, since august 7, 18 battles have completed
Of those 6 were No Show digs, 5 had four or fewer attackers, 5 were cancelled for policy violations.
Two more were scheduled before the policy was announced. One by a repeat no-show digger, the other by level 34 player in a one person town who has "recruited" all of 2 players, not set a topic, and as of T-35m was not online or present at the fort