Feedback Rescheduled or cancelled battles

Clever Hans

Clever Hans

Well-Known Member
mnnielsen said:
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
Click to expand...
If you truly believe that players want to be micromanaged or enjoy having "moderation team assistants" that move battles left and right based on the requests from their townies and alliance friends (these fights were not against your spam rules), I invite you to conduct a survey about it and see whether your playerbase wants certain groups of players to enjoy the special privileges just by having a privy contact to your specialists.
 

Benike-93

Member
Thats still wild tho.. with or without fort strategist..

Placing a large fort battle (which was the original dig btw.) to 03:00 am server time is simply insane and completely not understandable...
CM or fort strategist or idk who did this could move either 1 battles to the next day, or placing them between a 4 hours gap apart eachother in PRIME TIME, where most of your players are online. In this case, basically any other solution would be better than the current one.. Which is insane and means you all not really knows when are your most active and populated world are the busiest...

Anyways... Problem "solved" this time.. but if thats happens in the future please just dont randomly place a large fort (or any other) battle in the middle of the night..
 
Azeul

Azeul

Active Member
@mnnielsen

Perfect! Thank you for taking the time to write that up. I know you're busy, but we're on a vein here and I'd like to continue.


1 Would you mind re-stating what the role of the fort battling strategist is, with an inclusion to their #1 job priority please?
  • A: 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.
Follow-up: Where it becomes gray for me is in the word "assist." Is it assistance or are they more at the helm than you care to let on? More on that...


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.
Follow up: "Limited access to the tools" Granted they cannot change the formulas, I would consider cancelling, rescheduling and adjusting the amount of players allowed into a battle quite a substantial tool. Let's not forget when Goober decided to tinker with caps during an event, closing off maximum entries into battles, where more players got excluded in the name of "better quality." So, who is assisting who here? From my perspective, it is a player, namely Goober, who is a player in the CO world from said "player perspective" alliances that has control over forts in quite a impactful way.


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?
Follow up: Bar the initial statement of "This CAN include," what is written below that statement is only this:
- Generally declaring any battles within 3 hours of the previous declaration
- Declaring any battles with 2 hours before or after an Awesomia battle organized by The West Team.​

So where in that does it state, one must be within a large alliance or given special permission by larger alliances to dig? Where in that does it state, that if no battle has been dug, no other digs can be made until outside the prime time slot by another player? How is it that any other town or alliance can even come to own a fort, if they are restricted in what they are tolerated to do, by a consortium of players, fueled by the "assistance" of a moderator?


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.
Follow up: If there is no game feature, then how is a player supposed to know they are interfering with a scheduled battle? And furthermore if no scheduled battle has been made during a day, why would a legitimate dig be cancelled and in its place a dig that had obviously been dug as a multi? If its because the second battle was made by a more "esteemed" alliance, then I think we're back to where bias is a factor, and hence my concern for a PLAYER, acting as an assistant is able to make these decisions. Please consider pulling back the reigns on what Goober is allowed to do. I find it slightly offensive to say his tools are limited, when I am impacted more in a day by his actions than any other moderator.

Why not see what outcomes we have, without the over-management of fort battles? I have been an active player there for 12 years and bar the naughty pumpkin episodes, we have managed ourselves quite fine. If that is not acceptable, then I highly stress that we need to implement some in-game feature to notify towns and players registered or owning a fort that it has been altered. Sometimes there are more than one changes to these battles and it is absurd to think we as players are expected to keep up with all those changes. Thanks again for your time! Have a pleasant day. :-))
 
White Wolf

White Wolf

Member
I am new to Colorado and its FF scene, but I would just like to add one thing.

I just can't imagine how bad whoever dug this original battle must have felt. Not only was his attempt cancelled, but he is seen as an offender now apparently, simply for trying to play the game.

I understand that the management team needs insiders who are more up to date with in-game affairs, but this whole situation simply shows that Fort fighting is exclusive to certain big alliances. And you may retort by saying '' that's not true, you can join FFs if you are townless, therefore, fort fights are available to everyone ''. No. Most of the time people get left out, even if they have high levels and decent gear because small and medium forts are dug for primetime battles.

You would expect that those fort fight strategists would try to keep the fort fighting scene alive, but they are instead making it exclusive to a certain range of players and kill it.
 

Benike-93

Member
White Wolf said:
I am new to Colorado and its FF scene, but I would just like to add one thing.

I just can't imagine how bad whoever dug this original battle must have felt. Not only was his attempt cancelled, but he is seen as an offender now apparently, simply for trying to play the game.

I understand that the management team needs insiders who are more up to date with in-game affairs, but this whole situation simply shows that Fort fighting is exclusive to certain big alliances. And you may retort by saying '' that's not true, you can join FFs if you are townless, therefore, fort fights are available to everyone ''. No. Most of the time people get left out, even if they have high levels and decent gear because small and medium forts are dug for primetime battles.

You would expect that those fort fight strategists would try to keep the fort fighting scene alive, but they are instead making it exclusive to a certain range of players and kill it.
Click to expand...
Not his fault tho.. everyone has the right to dig a battle..
Sadly lots of player has sooo negative attitude in this game (who thinks they are someone only because they are playing the gime like 3 years..) and they are not hiding their opinion.. Which is ofc unacceptable..
So there is no point to attack anyone who dug a battle, either here or ingame chat like yesterday happened in saloon...
 
White Wolf

White Wolf

Member
Benike-93 said:
Not his fault tho.. everyone has the right to dig a battle..
Sadly lots of player has sooo negative attitude in this game (who thinks they are someone only because they are playing the gime like 3 years..) and they are not hiding their opinion.. Which is ofc unacceptable..
So there is no point to attack anyone who dug a battle, either here or ingame chat like yesterday happened in saloon...
Click to expand...
I agree with you. That's what I am trying to say. Everyone has the right to play the game, regardless of their allegiance to alliances. Unfortunately if you are not a member of an alliance, any effort is automatically seen as spam apparently, and cancelling their effort is seen as fair and balanced.
 

Oddersfield

Well-Known Member
I am not commenting on the merits or demerits of the above fort fight change, but have a more general question on the reason given for it.

Inno has in every discussion I have had with them said there is no such thing as prime time battles in the rules: it is simply an agreement between alliances on some worlds (usually between the leaders of the two biggest alliances and nobody else). How then can the first ff be moved by Inno on the grounds that an individual dug in 'prime time'. Is Inno now saying that the prime time concept is official and big alliances take precedence, even if anybody else digs FIRST?
 
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
Oddersfield said:
I am not commenting on the merits or demerits of the above fort fight change, but have a more general question on the reason given for it.

Inno has in every discussion I have had with them said there is no such thing as prime time battles in the rules: it is simply an agreement between alliances on some worlds (usually between the leaders of the two biggest alliances and nobody else). How then can the first ff be moved by Inno on the grounds that an individual dug in 'prime time'. Is Inno now saying that the prime time concept is official and big alliances take precedence, even if anybody else digs FIRST?
Click to expand...
The spam rule https://forum.the-west.net/index.php?threads/policies-for-spam-fort-battles.61409/ boils down to the key lines
"those battles declaration, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others"
and
"Intentionally interfering with others' scheduled or planned battles"
the specific examples provided are definitive (violations of those specific examples are presumptive violations of the rule) but not exhaustive (the local Teams have discretion to make other determinations not inconsistent with the language: "These scenarios may not cover every eventuality. The support team may choose to take actions in cases not covered by these policies." )

The concept of a "prime time" is consistent with the language "planned battles" and The Team has discretion to look to documented history of a series of battles when deciding between two battles both of which have received complaints -- there is no obligation to give preference to first-come-first-served, as doing so disproportionately favors those whose primary aim is to be disruptive.

Regardless, in the specific battle in question, the biggest deciding factor was that the digger of the earlier battle had participated in that days attack, while the digger of the later battle was a member of an alliance who owned the fort that had been defended that day. Therefor, in the context of determining which battle "interfer[ed] with others' ... planned battles" the decision was an easy one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top