Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:15 am

I kind of agree with what Gary has to say. At the same time I do understand the difficulties faced by Admins. I feel most of the reasons for conflicts between one player, the admin and another player is because there is too much of a rock, paper and scissors approach to admining and enforcing rules.

Say for example farming. I would say that if a player gets 50 colonies to build for him, for resources, then that is farming. Lets say a player gets 1 colony to build for him for 1 crystal. That is farming too, technically. But do you mete out the same punishment for both? What if this player, spent 2000 dollars a round? Okay, it was a violation alright, and you banned this guy for farming. What if he lost his 50 squads that he bought when he got banned? Do you compensate him for his losses? No he doesnt get compensated in today's Battledawn.

See, violation of game rules is one thing. But how you treat a customer who has paid so much is entirely another. You CANNOT treat a non supporter and a supporter equally. Especially certain players who end up spending a lot. I know a lot of you might feel that this is wrong and partial. I urge you to think of it in terms of a business being run. The key is to get people to keep coming back to the game. Say this guy gets pissed and leaves Battledawn. What has Battledawn gained? None. What has the admin gained? None. Have the players thanked the admins atleast? Nope. You lose more than you gained by enforcing a very strict rule and by adopting a rock paper and scissors approach.

Account Sharing is another thing. Technically a strategy game should be based on the amount of strategy you put in, not the amount of time. Being active 20 hours a day with no life, is not something that this game should force upon people. Technically speaking account sharing is NOT wrong. One player trusts another, so gives him his details. Its that player that takes the risk, and I dont think the company should take any responsibility for it. If at all its such a big issue, bring in some changes in game mechanics, and like Avi once suggested to me, make the ministers in an alliance be able to move squads. Maybe for a higher price of oil. Whatever. Or just legalize account sharing.

The Tos. Every Illegal activity in the Tos can be by passed by a player. I mean if account sharing is wrong, then that can be bypassed by using teamviewer. And it would amount to the same thing. Similarly, just because a player conquers a colony that attacked his enemy, DOES NOT mean that he was into farming. The colony that built could technically be just a new player attacking someone. But Admins have to go with their instincts on this one, and it is another reason for all the conflicts.

I like the idea of a review board, but the problems I see is that most players in BD today are pretty young. And yes, I wouldn't consider experience ingame as a criteria for being actually "experienced". We need people who are mature decision makers. Some teenagers over here, seem to be very idealistic. Its natural, but doesnt work for the game. We need practical decision makers. But then again, I believe that would only result in bureaucratizing an already faulty system. I would suggest changes made to game mechanics for a few things that are considered violations today. I would also suggest the Tos to be updated, CLEARLY with all possible scenarios at hand, about what is a violation and what isnt. I would also like to add, that these Donts should actually be practical and not too idealistic.

Lastly, reduce the power that admins have to do things ingame. Yes an admin can customize relics, but let him deploy the relics, and let the BD code handle where it deploys the relics or how many units a relic has. It could just be at random locations. Maybe the unit levels on each relic should just have a few options on the admin screen like - Easy, Difficult, Insane. If an admin chooses the Easy package, then relics release randomly, with minimum units. If he chooses difficult, then probably a little bit of crystals and a little more units. You get the idea. The admin tools should really be only to moderate, not interfere. I just chose the relic topic, you can think about any other scenario that an admin can influence ingame.

And yeah I forgot to add, make the forums less lenient for Christs sakes. Every darned thing is censored. Mods tend to mod every reply. If a mod hasn't warned anyone in about 2 weeks, he gets bored and then issues a "Stay on topic" warning. You have too many mods, too many rules and too many people willing to speak their mind, but only a few who feel encouraged to do so.

aviturg · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 5:24 am

@Seth:

Yes, your job is hard and thankless. maybe you just need to take it more in proportions. same people that post something in the forum now would post the exact opposite thing without any hasitations if they were on the other side, and i bet you know that already.

one thing i have to correct you though: we, the players, should not be "thankful" for being able to talk to an administrator. BD is a game, it's not bread and water and we are here because overall we like it. i never played evony, i played another one (don't even remember its name) and it was ugly and boring. therefore i left after 3-4 days. and same will be here if BD stops being fun for any of us, they will just quit.

As much as we all like to think about BD as a game, BD is a business first of all, and a business should understand that itself is lucky to have customers. a business that starts thinking that its customers are lucky to be with it, is on its way down the hill.

I know that BD tries to find ways to get more players to join the game. it is a well known rule in business, that it is easier to keep a customer than to bring in a new one, and if you fail to keep players, especially ones that supports you, then you should check very carefully what you are doing wrong.

Other than that, banning the colony in africa has no reason, since he didnt leave us, and was meant to stay in our alliance. it is not a multi and he never broke any rule. if he is banned from other worlds too, how can you consider it fair??

daerduo · **Joined:** Tue May 24, 2011 6:20 am **Posts:** 576

I don't agree with most of the stuff mfreak just said, but

mfreak wrote:

And yeah I forgot to add, make the forums less lenient for Christs sakes. Every darned thing is censored. Mods tend to mod every reply. If a mod hasn't warned anyone in about 2 weeks, he gets bored and then issues a "Stay on topic" warning. You have too many mods, too many rules and too many people willing to speak their mind, but only a few who feel encouraged to do so.

qft. Mods are being WAY too liberal with warnings.

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:22 am

State why you dont agree.

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:38 am

Ah I found the other thread. Lets continue there if you want

daerduo · **Joined:** Tue May 24, 2011 6:20 am **Posts:** 576

Check discussion and debates...that's only one point, there are several others I'd like to discuss, but not here.

mfreak · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:44 am

Yeah we can do one by one.

Seth · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:07 pm

Avi, I never said you should consider yourself lucky. You have a knack for putting words in peoples mouths in an argument.

The point I was trying to make is that we already go above and beyond our competitors, and in case you havent noticed, it still is not enough. Fact is, It will never be enough. Even if we had some "admin review panel" it would not be enough, because the rest of the community would eventually call bias as those players would have too much power over the admins etc etc. The point is that no matter how much you do, there will always be those who are unhappy with it. Often times, the more you do, the more people are unhappy in such a respect.

As for the forums being more lenient, if you have complaints about someone abusing power of moderation or being overbearing. Simply telling me that things are too strict and not giving me a who or why does not help me understand where you are coming from at all. However, in such reports, it is always best to do in a PM to me, and not out in the open for various reasons.

@Avi

so you are saying that in any event, players should be allowed to have a friend come out of nowhere at any point in the round, right near the enemy hive for the soul purpose of being a gate.

I tried making the point to you that this is the equivalent of farming, and you told me you did it 3 times!!!!

2 of which are banned, and one lingering.

Your argument with the first ban and the ban for John Doe for conquering him was that "he had not transferred resources yet", but the only reason for that was that I had said something to you about it the very tick it happened, otherwise i doubt anything would have progressed differently.

On this next one, OF COURSE you wanted him there! it was an instant gate into enemy territory without the need for any strategic maneuvering. There is no OTHER reason that this colony was placed. He didnt place there because it was good for his health, he placed there becasue it was the enemy doorstep PERIOD

your arguments to this are "what if he had been there the whole round?", and "He intended to stay in the alliance". Well, thats no excuse at all because you are trying to exploit a loophole and loopholes are clearly covered in the Terms of Service. Had he been there the whole round, maybe, just maybe things would have been different depending on the activity of that colony (if it was placed on tick one, but not logged into again until it became strategically important, it would still have been a slave account), but this is not the case.

I find your, and your alliance propensity for skirting the edge and trying to find any way around the rules that you can to place spam colonies on the enemy doorstep to open a gate to the enemy hive, very disturbing and very dishonorable. There was plenty of time left this era to build and mount an offensive and to really show what you guys had in a more strategic manner without exploitation. And thats just what happened here. Exploitation. Without making spam colonies, friends or not, pop up out of nowhere to use as gates to the enemy hive, you would not have been able to get there so easily. And to be able to do this so easily is simply unfair.

It is a pitty. I was really looking forward to a good war even though there were only 2 competitors.

@mfreak

I have always based my bans on farming and accounts on the severity of the offense (i.e. the more damage potentially caused in scale with the offense = the more severe the punishment). I might ban even for small offenses, but in these cases I simply wait for a response from the banned player so that I can make sure my point has been driven home before releasing them.

I am sorry, but paying money SHOULD NOT buy special treatment when it comes to breaking the rules. This sacrifices integrity. If I am going to go that far, I might as well let heavy supporters like Avi here do whatever he wants and walk over everyone else. Then everyone else will quit and Avi will be all alone

I appreciate supporters as much as anyone else, but I think demanding that heavy supporters be allowed to get away with cheating to be rather insulting to all of the other players whom cannot afford to pay as much. I dont think this makes any sense at all. Sorry.

psg188 · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:36 pm

It's very simple.

Throw away colonies who are not actually playing are against the rules.

NO used them, and got a very short ban for it.

The relic thing is old news, that relic was selected to be extra defended when it was first placed... it wasn't to be anti-NO... you already got 3 easy relics near you in such a small area. If randomness can help you, it can hurt you too. You didn't have to take it, you made a choice.

I think Seth did a good job here.

Ilona · **Posted:** Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:38 pm

Seth wrote:

[color=#BF8000]

There was plenty of time left this era to build and mount an offensive and to really show what you guys had in a more strategic manner without exploitation. And thats just what happened here. Exploitation. Without making spam colonies, friends or not, pop up out of nowhere to use as gates to the enemy hive, you would not have been able to get there so easily. And to be able to do this so easily is simply unfair.

Quote:

Detail from The Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy by Domenico Tiepolo (1773), inspired by Virgil's Aeneid

The Trojan Horse is a tale from the Trojan War, as told in Virgil's Latin epic poem The Aeneid, also by Dionysius, Apollodorus and Quintus of Smyrna. The events in this story from the Bronze Age took place after Homer's Iliad, and before his Odyssey. It was the stratagem that allowed the Greeks finally to enter the city of Troy and end the conflict.

In one version, after a fruitless 10-year siege, the Greeks constructed a huge wooden horse, and hid a select force of 30 men inside. The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of night. The Greek army entered and destroyed the city of Troy, decisively ending the war.

In the Greek tradition, the horse is called Δούρειος Ἵππος, Doúreios Híppos, the "Wooden Horse", in the Homeric Ionic dialect. Metaphorically a "Trojan Horse" has come to mean any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or space. It is also associated with "malware" computer programs presented as useful or harmless to induce the user to install and run them.

The greeks were a dishonorable alliance Seth? Ban them !

Some Clown Locked The Topic