What is strategy? What is the purpose of a game?

The purpose of a game is to be fun, and the genre of strategy games derive fun from using resources to develop the best plans to win within the rules.

This is a game based on maneuvering armies and controlling territory. The addition of resource OPs into the game was obviously to reward good territory expansion in replacing conquers as a primary source of income for large teams.

This game is broken in so many ways, but slowly it is getting better.

In the first era of GIFT, spies were broken and floating squads were immune to being targeted by squads. After winning 6 refresh races in a row, I finally lost one. Each time I won the race, did we catch any squads? No, because we were attacking and they were defending. Each time they just escaped and almost caught us in a lockdown before I barely added enough spy protection.

The 7th time, I lost. I got one two spy protections, but not a 3rd before we were locked and spied. According to the game mechanics at the time, we would all die, despite playing a superior game up to that point for weeks we would lose our entire force by being 1 second too late on the SEVENTH refresh race. The fact that there was no 1 tick immunity to spies implemented yet, and the fact that spy protection was not balanced properly spelled our doom.

So I did what any good leader would, I kicked the player owning the OP we were on. Due to ANOTHER bug in the game code, the attacking armies were spied by their own spy attacks... they all died when they battled the now single player (the one I kicked) defending the OP, while the rest of our army floated harmlessly above, watching the battle take place just out of reach.

Thus began one of the largest *CENSORED* in BD forum history. Dozens of pages of replies calling me the worst cheater in the history of battledawn, despite breaking no rules. A loophole perhaps, but we'll get to that later. Andrew actually felt the pressure from all this complaining and banned me for 4 hours for this. ME. He banned ME! I was appalled.

Only after long talks with the other admins and Michael, was I released. Of course the first tick I was banned the rank2 team backstabbed us and kicked off one of my toughest wars yet. We eventually won, through consistently superior play.

Did I do wrong? I used one flaw in the game mechanics to negate another. Should we have died because of that flaw in game mechanics? No, I evened the score.

Fast forward to today. A new flaw in game mechanics becomes abused. Two colonies were placed for the sole purpose of being used as gate nodes to bypass 50 ticks of fortified territory. Had these been players playing under their own volition, nothing could be done. But alas... NO was unable or unwilling to attempt this variation. Two colonies placed, used tokens to boost up a gate and shield, and waited for their chance... They didn't wait long, their opportunity approached.

NO kicked people in order to recruit the two new gate points. They moved through the first and into the second colony. Immediately kicking the middle gate node. He was shortly thereafter conquered by JD. Was this a player playing for himself who wanted to quit? No. Cannibalizing players who want to quit after obviously playing under their own volition is not slave abuse. That's simply keeping in your team what your team earned together.

Conquering this player was against the rules. JD had a history of flaunting the rules by funding spammer slave colonies in E1 last era... this time a short 8-10 tick ban was placed. Also the two slave colonies were banned.

The player in South America was banned for obvious reasons. He was placed for a single purpose, booted immediately, and then conquered by the friend he placed to help. Classic slave abuse, and has been punishable by banning for years.

The player in Africa was a bit trickier. He was still in NO, he had not been kicked and conquered. Not nearly cut and dry. Had he built some units? Yes, so he still logged in... but it can be seen it was mostly to recharge his shield and spit out spam units. The reason he wasn't kicked was because he was of more strategic value by remaining in the alliance as a shieldable OP to group on while members slept. The SA player was a simple gate node, the African one was a gate node and a shieldable OP. Had this player been placed and joined NO, even if he started attacking, he could easily be a legitimate player had he stuck around. The fact remains he was not simply placing just to place there, it was to abuse the nature of a "new colony" for use of his location in support of the rest of the alliance rather than simply a friend who wants to help out... Oh he did help out indeed, but it was in a way that is beyond the scope of how the game is intended to be played.

JD was banned not for organizing this, but for participating in conquering the slave colony in SA.

What did Michael have to say about this? It was allowed by game mechanics? Yes it was...



Just because it's allowed, doesn't mean that the slave colonies wouldn't be banned. That just means that all of NO was free from persecution for employing it, the offending slave colonies are another story.

He goes on to say that it is up to Seth to arbitrate justice as he saw fit.

In the end, we are left with a game that still has many flaws. Game mechanics alone cannot handle all the potential abuses. Michael had this philosophy back before anyone was banned for anything. I remember those days, people bragged about using multis but no one was punished for it. Eventually it became obvious that administrators per server would be necessary to handle the gray area issues, to keep the flow of gameplay from being interrupted by people abusing the system.

What has Seth done this era?

1. Banned Dees (NO Player) and his ring of OP producing multis
2. Extra defended randomly one of the relics, much to NO's dismay despite being quite pleased with the positive aspects of the random relic drops giving them 4 around their single controlled continent.
3. Banned two slave colonies as Michael ordered
4. Temp-banned JD for conquering one of those slave colonies as it was not a first offense

To those who say anything should be allowed if the game mechanics allow it, you are fools who don't understand the first thing about game balance.

I can:
A) Get friends to build me OPs to take
B) Get friends to build in strategic locations for spamming enemy OP clusters
C) Use multis
D) Get friends to make colonies to spy attack my own OPs to trap hostile incoming squads, bypassing the 1 tick immunity
E) Get friends to mass up resources, collect it on a single player and join my team to disperse these resources after 100 ticks

I can name a dozen other "tactics" that are "allowed" by game mechanics that go against the spirit of this game.

I have done things in the past, as the situation I described above... did I do it to maliciously alter the flow of the game? No. I did it to reverse another gross error in game balance.

Why did NO do this? Because they were better strategists? No, they did it because they were losing and this was a last ditch effort to win. Using loopholes to win when you wouldn't win without the loopholes is a heinous act against those legitimate and hardworking players who just want to play a nice strategy game without worrying about people abusing the flaws at every turn.

It takes a smart person to find and abuse these flaws, but it is not the kind of strategy I want in this game... the game should be won by the better team, as is what happened here and the other era I referred to earlier. Just because the loophole didn't make NO win, does not mean it wasn't an atrocious breach of the honor code amongst legitimate players and all those who think this is a valid way to play should be ashamed of themselves.

The game requires lots of improvements still, lots of balancing and new features to patch up holes in how the game operates... just because something isn't fixed does not mean it's an intended feature. Thinking so is only your way of deluding yourself into thinking you're not just someone trying to take something you didn't earn.

The game needs people like you however, to find these errors so that they may be corrected, but when elements of your "strategy" involve things well precedented as against the rules, such as slave colonies, do not whine when the ban hammer comes swinging on said slave colonies.

Honestly, This is getting pathetic and has dragged on way too long..

I believe that Seth made the right choice, asking a 'Friend' to make an account simply for the use of being used as a gate is no different to a player making a group of multi's and conquering them. They both give you an unfair edge against the opponent, in the multi case you have more resources coming in and in this case you have a HUGE strategic advantage. That isn't morally right, if you know that its a 'Grey area' don't exploit it because the chances are it may not be so 'Grey' for everyone. Just because the game mechanics allow you to do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it. That's exploiting the game, which is WRONG.

You would have not have liked the same thing to have happened to you?, You would have seen another group of players arguing the same thing on the forum.

So god, leave the admin's alone they are simply doing their job. People make decision's and so do the admins, Not always the right decision but nether the less one you have to follow. For example? A football game, the referee may make a mistake, but thousands of people complaining has NEVER changed the outcome of a game because of it.

Kevin,

You know I find you to be the greatest BD player ever. You are unmatched in your strategy, game knowledge, activity and persistence. I have been devoted to you and your abilities at use to you and your abilities repeatedly. I hold you in NOTHING but the highest respect. Your post is thoughtful and precise and certainly contains your point of view well.

You believe it's ok to exploit the game to correct vast injustices in game code which you have brought to the makers attention but have failed to be corrected. You're Kane. The man. They should have fixed it long ago. And you're right. They should have. But, to an outsider reading it, it seems like when YOU do something it's for purity sake and when someone else does, it's nefarious. It makes your position weaker.

Far better to stand on the side of light. As I outlined earlier, a guerrilla war in the face of a superior enemy is a valid strategy. NO employed it, using hidden allies around the globe to their benefit. They would still lose, but the use of friends to help them defeat you was their primary goal. They did it, and should have been allowed to do it.

Period. It is against the game's spirit to twist things Seth has done here and repeatedly does. Ultimately, I think you know this. Which is why in your well written reply you NEVER address the fact Seth banned people he admits broke no rules because he thought they might eventually.

What is lacked,

Complaining about an official's bad call never changes the game's outcome, but the official's bad call has. Seth's calls have and will until he shows the restraint to stop punishing people for something they haven't done wrong yet. And the difference is the football official isn't calling pass interference on a current play because in a future play he knows the guy will eventually commit one.

I find it appalling people actually think laying in wait to spring a trap on an enemy is somehow wrong. It's good, honest, fun game play. Even if it proved out over time those new NO colonies were simple gates which later would get swallowed and go inactive, I'd argue it would not be a violation, but at least THEN, AFTER it happened, a rule could be applied to punish the behavior.

That's how officials do their job, you understand?

They punish when someone does something wrong in their interpretation of the rules. NOT before, because they expect something later. You can argue the call when an interpretation is made on a violation after it happens. Judgement is what judgement is.

We're not talking about that here.

Seth made a call before anything happened, because he thought it eventually would. As NONE of you on his side have yet to even comment on this fact as admitted by Seth, I take it you realize it is compelling and have no possible comment.

it still fits as farming

I'm on BD because Kevin asked me.

I'm here in these forums because the method you operate is so intrusive and inappropriate as to require someone to call you on it.

I was on a camping trip when all that went down, went down. That is indeed so. Fortunately when I address your actions regarding taking action against people in the game prior to them doing anything wrong, I'm not using being on the game to suggest it.

YOU SAID IT.

Want me to pull your quote up again?

You wrote that you banned the other colonies because you expected them to become farms too and the only evidence you had against that was the people involved saying it wasn't so, and, heck, who can believe them.

You wrote it. You had additional evidence you ignored. That evidence is people hadn't broken the rules but you thought they might. The part about NOT having broken the rules was evidence in their favor. Seth, are you now retracting your comment you punished people you expected to later break the rules, as you earlier stated you did?

Be very clear please.

Ultimately one of two things will happen from me being here.

One, I'm never back.

Two, you admit you may have a problem which routinely runs afoul of the player base and openly state you are going to attempt to moderate your own behavior in a better way.

Either way, I win. I get rid of your bad behavior, or I get you with better. Winning baby.

and now you're being disrespectful. disrespect will never get you anywhere. rule or not, it's still wrong of you to treat alliance members in such a way

So your proposing that NOTHING should have been done simply because it had not happened "yet" when it was clear what was happening.

If I phoned the police right now and reported a group of men looking very shady approaching a house that i knew the owners we're on holiday holding a crow bar or such an item. Obviously with the intent of breaking in, The police on the phone would not tell me to wait until they have robbed the house then phone back when all of their possessions we're gone. They would step in and attempt to prevent the crime, that is all the seth has done. He has done nothing 'wrong'.

Okay lets take on your argument one by one Kevin. First of all what you did on E1 was legitimate. You did show superior gameplay for almost 2 weeks before you lost the refresh race and got locked down. But that does not however mean you did not "derserve" to be locked down. You did not add spy pro fast enough, so you got locked down. Now, in that scenario, you had only one option, and that was to kick the outpost owner. You did this, and I dont blame you for it. It was a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Having said that, when you use a loophole ingame it does not become legitimate, and when we do it it does not become abuse.

Fast forward to today. A new flaw in game mechanics becomes revealed. Those two colonies were placed for the purpose of gating alright. But they did that of their own accord. They wanted to play, and wanted to help. Yes we funded them tokens, but that is perfectly legal in BD. You CAN send tokens to anyone in your alliance and outside. Now, by passing 50 ticks of fortified territory is NOT by any means a violation of ingame rules. AT BEST it could be bad tactics.

We kicked and conquered the colony in SA, simply because we would be stuck in Africa if we did not do it. Calling it farming means something entirely different. Farming would mean, we conquered the guy for resources and for funding us metal and oil every tick. However this did not happen. He was conquered as it was a necessary move, in our strategy. Now you may not view this whole sequence of events as strategy, but that does not make it no strategy. It could at best make it bad strategy and good or bad, strategy is strategy. Cannibalizing players who wanna quit after obviously playing under their own volition is not slave abuse indeed. These colonies did play under their own volition. If you remember they were in our alliance, were kicked out and their crystals were taken, same what you did to Capri or whoever left GIFT. The amount of time a person spends in a team is of no consequence. I can join a team and choose to quit and give my crystals to them the tick after I join them. This is completely valid and terming it as anything else is wrong.

JD might have broken rules in the past, however that does not give the admin any room to ban him when he actually DID NOT. This was not slave abuse by any means, it was simply a colony that joined us, quit and gave up crystals. He could also choose to rejoin later, but all of that amounts to only one thing - playing the game freely of one's own free will. That cannot be bannable by any measure.

The player in Africa being banned was a total joke. So what if the guy had a shield to protect our troops. He was still in NO. He was playing his part in the alliance by sacrificing his colony to nukes etc and shielding our troops. Again not a violation.

Now whatever game mechanics allows is indeed valid. That is why its there. Now I agree the game is broken in many ways, has to be fixed and it is a continuous process of development. If at all there is a particular tactic, that could be in bad taste, then make that a rule. But indeed, such instances have to be found out. If this was one such tactic, that should not be used then fix it. Now this is a scenario similar to yours, in that it was never addressed before this. When you have a situation that is totally new, you cannot go ahead and ban people, even if you chalk it up for removal. You should atleast let people know that it isnt allowed from now on. That wasnt what happened here.

What has Seth done this era?

1. Banned Dees unfairly, when I know PERSONALLY and have SEEN THEM PERSONALLY use different laptops, different USB Dongles, to log into BD, for farming. He initially banned him for the whole era, but dees sorted it out with him and requested Seth to check the IPs. Infact Dees asked us not to take any outposts, some of us ignored it due to carelessness. That is not farming by any means.

2. Relics being defended extra were not a problem and we stated that multiple times. However, taking away our options to kill units effectively was. Seth argued that this was done to make things more interesting. Our only concern was, why not increase the units even more, and let us just use Nukes, Ions or other forms of killing units more effectively, instead of forcing us to use only tactic. Send a lot of squads. Again a minor abuse of power, though I dont wish to argue too much over something so minor, compared to what he has done now. Nevertheless it was wrong.

3. Banned 2 colonies, that were unfairly interpreted as slave colonies.
4. Temp Banned JD for playing the game in a fair manner, and NOT farming. Farming is abuse for resources as I explained earlier, and this was by no means farming. Nor is this specific scenario explained anywhere as farming. Again a wrong decision.

Now we all understand concepts about game balance. But what we did did not tip the balance in our favor.

Now yes indeed you can:

A) Get friends to build me OPs to take
B) Get friends to build in strategic locations for spamming enemy OP clusters
C) Use multis
D) Get friends to make colonies to spy attack my own OPs to trap hostile incoming squads, bypassing the 1 tick immunity
E) Get friends to mass up resources, collect it on a single player and join my team to disperse these resources after 100 ticks

There of course a dozen other tactics that are allowed by game mechanics yet invalid, BUT, as long as you DO NOT HAVE proof, you CANNOT ban a person, EVEN if you had any doubts that, that person was cheating. That is fair justice, that is how every judiciary works. Even the admin has to follow the same principles, since here in BD, we dont have any other recourse, and often times the Admins are the Judge, Jury and the Executioners. For this reason, players should be presented with proof of their cheating and the situation has to be discussed and players given a fair chance to explain themselves. This is not too much of an asking, and it is the way it SHOULD be.

Now I dont know what NO did was great strategy or not, and we certainly didnt know this was indeed a loophole, and we certainly did not know that we would uncover one with our move. We simply talked about it and after many hours of discussions came to the conclusion that we would try this maneuver. If that is an atrocious abuse of ingame rules then what you did by kicking Juno to save units when locked down, was an atrocious abuse of ingame rules as well. Whether you evened the score or not. The only thing that stood against you was the fact that you actually knew that was a loophole and still did it, whereas in our case, we didnt even know that this COULD be a loophole. Which infact makes us that much more innocent of the accusations. If we should be ashamed for this, so should you, for doing what you did back then. But its not me who is saying that, its you. Take a good look at how biased you are when it comes to talking about your actions, when I am trying to be that much more liberal and even go on to call your tactics valid. Maybe I am just fair and you are not And by doing that you greatly dissapoint me, cuz often times you have made sense on the forums, but this time you are simply wrong.

The game needs people like the both of us to find these sorts of errors so they maybe corrected no doubt. You whined too, when the ban hammer was on you when you knowingly used a loophole. In this case we didnt even know it was a loophole.