Feedback Rescheduled or cancelled battles

I am currently unable to post this to the correct thread:
so am posting here:

Cancelled Battles:
• World: Colorado
• Fort name: Mahsa Amini
• Declaration time: 2023-08-04 06:59
• Battle occurrence time: 2023-08-04 06:59
• Reason for canceling: Abusive same-player multi by repeat offender

• World: Colorado
• Fort name: FREEDOM
• Declaration time: 2023-08-04 07:35
• Battle occurrence time: 2023-08-04 07:35
• Reason for canceling: Abusive same-player multi by repeat offender
 
One battle set forward 60 hours, then warped back in time. One battle shifted into prime, then retracted back to original dig time, only to be cancelled with another battle. All of which occurring in less than 24 hours, with no notice or information regarding these changes. How, as a player, are we to keep up with all these changes and why, are players given the option to "request to cancel" their own battles? CO was fully capable of managing itself, with or without the presence of multis, and now, there seems to be a pathway for making these kind of erroneous digs, pleading with their good boy pal Goober and getting it all switched around. I find this behavior a complete overreach of game rules and should be stopped.
 
Azeul said:
One battle set forward 60 hours, then warped back in time. One battle shifted into prime, then retracted back to original dig time, only to be cancelled with another battle. All of which occurring in less than 24 hours, with no notice or information regarding these changes. How, as a player, are we to keep up with all these changes and why, are players given the option to "request to cancel" their own battles? CO was fully capable of managing itself, with or without the presence of multis, and now, there seems to be a pathway for making these kind of erroneous digs, pleading with their good boy pal Goober and getting it all switched around. I find this behavior a complete overreach of game rules and should be stopped.
Click to expand...

It is very much required at times and I'm glad that goober has some oversight in managing digs, what's the harm in cancelling digs or rescheduling them to have a better shot at more players being present? There are times when battles are dug too close and are mutually destructive to both battles as players get split, it's always good if there is space between these digs through goober so both battles have healthier numbers

What prejudice does this oversight cause anybody? How is this something the players have to keep up with, these changes are usually made within the first hour or so of the battle being dug, is 15+ hours not enough to keep up with changes?
 
sanidh said:
It is very much required at times and I'm glad that goober has some oversight in managing digs, what's the harm in cancelling digs or rescheduling them to have a better shot at more players being present? There are times when battles are dug too close and are mutually destructive to both battles as players get split, it's always good if there is space between these digs through goober so both battles have healthier numbers

What prejudice does this oversight cause anybody? How is this something the players have to keep up with, these changes are usually made within the first hour or so of the battle being dug, is 15+ hours not enough to keep up with changes?
Click to expand...
IF they were within the first hour, sure. But from my perspective, this is not the case. I've found it about 50-50, if not lower, for altered battles not receiving a proper saloon announcement, let alone a standing record here for what changes were made.

So, by my statement, keeping up with it, is something like this: log in.. see battle overview. Find ones that are suitable for my time zones and mark which ones I can attend. Come back and see that has changed. Sometimes a battle moved out 60hr, sometimes moved back 3hr, etc. etc. More digs are made for the following day, more scheduling changes made (all still within 24 hours) and the points of confusion amplify. Now, it comes time to actually attend those battles. Why else for all the effort, but to put them at proper time slots, right? Oh, guess not. They've been re-altered and the battle is soon to occur. Quick check saloon and see there is no notice concerning them and so cancel job queue and quickly travel to fort. Although, despite being signed up, now I am not permitted to join and it's pretty disappointing to clear a job queue and travel to the fort for this sort of outcome.

CO never had to deal with an evolving and shifting battle overview like this. It's overdone and over-exercised. There have been plenty of screw up the schedule type digs and we simply acknowledged them and moved on. Sometimes they can even be attended and a little fun had with it. This oops, sorry wrong time, let me cancel that and move it around the overview response is detracting from the game module that most of us long-timers are used to. Perhaps your existence in that specific world leads you to feel differently, but not for me and the 12 years of accountability I discern from.
 
I'm not sure what the solution here is, but there's been a lot of confusion on my part with the altering of fort battles, especially in CO where so many battles are occurring. Last instance of this was, signed up for a battle, wrote down the time for it the next day along with other worlds battles. Come back in the morning to see I've missed the battle and another battle is in its place. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty certain which one I signed up for was the time I wrote down and it had not been changed. This is with regards to 14 January battles.

If I'm simply mistaken, disregard. But if there are changes being made, we have an issue. 1 They're not posted in the saloon. 2 They're not posted here either. Occaisonally, yes, but not always and its the always that has to be rectified in some way. I suggest some form of internal game logisitic that notifies a player if a battle they're signed up for has been altered. Say in the form of a report. It has been way too confusing to sign-up, and upon next login, try to figure out whether I'm totally crazy or a battle has been changed or cancelled entirely.
 
There was no battle cancelled/changed on 14th Jan on Colorado, you might have not remembered the time of sign up. Usually Goober posts the changes he makes to battles here on the forum.
 
WesternCalin said:
There was no battle cancelled/changed on 14th Jan on Colorado, you might have not remembered the time of sign up. Usually Goober posts the changes he makes to battles here on the forum.
Click to expand...
Usually, but not always. Which continues the story of my circling to understand what has been changed on a daily basis. It's almost like the scenario of being robbed. Once you've encountered it, you can't forget or un-suspect it. And so now I'm always wondering if the battles were the same as they were the day before and must I make adjustments to my schedule.

So, I think my suggestion is pretty good, bar the leg-work to implement it. Have a report that notifies a player if a battle they're signed up for has been changed. Similar to that of an auction bid being out-bid on. If we're going to go forward with this, it would alleviate the task of having to come to forum/saloon to post information and vice versa for players.
 
So, I would like to know... Why a battle in CO, dug at the far edge of prime time, without any other conflicting battles is deemed illegitimate?

Surely, "prime-time" is just an agreed upon notion and not an actual game feature, correct? Furthermore, where is this supposed "schedule" that players must abide by? Is this an authorized game feature or are the inmates running the prison?

It concerns me when a player enacts a game-wide action available to us all, and is pushed aside with warnings and terms like "offense" and "moved to next legal time" are used. I don't need lectures on quality of battles, etc. either. I'm aware, its about the abuse of power by players who are also mods dictating game-wide decisions and a consortium of PLAYERS who have authority over others. That's the bottom-line for me.
 
For the situational context please read...

A player, without an alliance, dug a battle with no other battles occurring, set a topic and posted in saloon to come have fun. Thereby clearing the illegitimacy of it being an "interference battle." He gets accosted in private by another player, told to leave the world, etc. and 10min later, a player with an alliance dug another battle, intentionally interfering with the previous dig. One would think the second battle is the multi, correct? Nope.

First battle is moved, and player is issued a warning (seen in Rescheduled Battle topic)
Second battle gets moved up into priority slot. Explain this behavior please?
 
If you didn't know until this point there is a prime time window where the 2 main opposing alliances fight on Colorado each digging a battle every other day to create battles that are filled, have known/good leaders that try to do their best to win. That is why this battle was moved to another spot where other battles can be dug and everyone can lead in those, trying not to interfere with the main battle. Just to point out why that battle wasn't gonna be ok is because it was against a full alliance and the digger was on his own and he would not fill his side creating and imbalanced and not fun battle for everyone even as a losing attacker or defender.
 
who had the bright idea to move a big fort battle (in prime time) to 3 am and leave a multi dig in its original time? how about you either cancel it or move it forward 24 hours? or better, dont touch it and move the multi to another time slot. Who tf is in charge of this? do you even think when you do stuff like this?
 
@mnnielsen

Can you please answer a few questions, so going forward we also have clearer lines and boundaries on this particular issue?

1 Would you mind re-stating what the role of the fort battling strategist is, with an inclusion to their #1 job priority please?

2 Would you see it fit that a strategist also plays in the world that they moderate, despite it being stated on the team page that they would not? (Source)

3 Where in the rules does it state that a player, in order to dig on a fort, must request permission from other alliances to do so?

4 Could you inform me of the game feature that hosts a calendar for digging schedules that all players are privvy to?

Lastly,
Is it maybe time to let the strategist take a back seat approach to moderating battles and see if there are really any underlying issues that require fixing, or a need to constantly adjust caps, sign-up restrictions and shift battle times according to unknown sources?

Please remember, that at the onset of this discussion @Syntex 's stated goal was for more transparency.
 
1 Would you mind re-stating what the role of the fort battling strategist is, with an inclusion to their #1 job priority please?
  • The Fort Battle Strategist position exists to assist the moderation team in the regulation of Fort Battles from the perspective of active players who better understand the current state of that PvP activity of the game.

2 Would you see it fit that a strategist also plays in the world that they moderate, despite it being stated on the team page that they would not? (Source)
  • Assisting the moderation team in the regulation of Fort Battles from the perspective of active players who better understand the current state of that PvP activity of the game is not considered moderating the worlds on which they play, because they only have very limited access to the tools . - and yes, I know we need to update the list to the current team members.

3 Where in the rules does it state that a player, in order to dig on a fort, must request permission from other alliances to do so?

4 Could you inform me of the game feature that hosts a calendar for digging schedules that all players are privvy to?
  • There is no such feature built into the game. - but we are working in the team to make a calendar/schedule and make it public here on forum, but thats only regarding Awesomia.

Lastly,
Is it maybe time to let the strategist take a back seat approach to moderating battles and see if there are really any underlying issues that require fixing, or a need to constantly adjust caps, sign-up restrictions and shift battle times according to unknown sources?

Please remember, that at the onset of this discussion @Syntex 's stated goal was for more transparency.
  • I know, I was also involved in making that decision - Syntex and I had equal responsibility and decision-making power here. And I'll take your suggestion into consideration
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top