Forgotten Tales

Thank you MadMikael for mentioning the 90% not-directly-in-game work we do.
I've been so busy in logs and investigations, during last days, that I'm just now having time to read this thread and write a too short answer.

Thanks to the investigations on the reports one player has been providing me, I've been able understanding a detail of how the game mechanics work. I cannot explain it here, but he is one complaining about having been unheard.

Funny enought, no one came thanking the staff for slowing down the too-hight speed building of a faction. I just noticed how reports on that issue stopped arriving after we jailed an account that we didn't know was building there and that shouldn't have been in-game at all (again, cannot provide details). Just because we dont (nor won't) advertise punishments, it doesn't mean they are not being provided.

I'd also like adding this. If we had to declare "it's spamming" for each received spam report, that whole part of the map would be empty. Each report has been evaluated and decided upon. Each abuse has been punished. And yet both sides are convinced we are supporting the other one.
I wonder when will arrive a report on how we are siding up with a faction by providing them greener grass ground texture...

ardesia wrote: And yet both sides are convinced we are supporting the other one.

This.
OMG this.
No matter what I do, I hear it from both sides.
Guess that's a sign I'm doing something right....

But this is a big reason I prefer to avoid clan maps if I can.
The age old term of "clan drama" always applies.
Either I'm not sticking my nose in where I should, or I'm sticking it in where it doesn't belong....
According to typical clanned players, that is.
They all have their own individual idea of what it is that I should be doing.

Me, I'd prefer to sit at start map, and help mostly new players, and the players who need a GM, rather than babysit on a map that everyone is allowed to fight over. I settle enough disputes on maps that players have to share.

TBH - I don't like this rule much at all.
The age old rule was basically this - all is fair in clan warfare, and clan maps are the main battlezone.
So long as a main game rule was not violated, like bug abuse. Even chat censoring was slightly relaxed.
That allowed me to use the /ignore command towards all this drama.
Sadly, not anymore.

It was asked why, this rule is coming to effect.
As the players mentioned above - this rule stems from chronic mechanic abuse.
The original idea was easy - one clan would create low level alts, with a new clan, and build up all the buildings they could to block the way.
Maybe do it again with another low clan, and maybe another...
TBH - when I first saw it, I laughed - the fact that no one had done it to this extreme before was funny to me.
But it was obvious - this was playing the game in a way it was not meant to be played. Tactical blocking was one thing; this was a distinct abuse of a game mechanic. But as the rules were currently, I knew I was powerless to act - another reason for my laugh.

After heated discussions by many, the rule began to form - basically, we interpreted this as a mild violation of a few rules, and so, we could in fact punish. Then the debate about, what was a suitable punishment. Once we thought we had a guideline going, it began to be enforced.
But, many clanned players will push every rule to its limit to try and get the most advantage they can. Oh, these sort of players are not all on one side, nor all from one country either - so if you're one of the ones thinking so, wake up. Players stopped doing the above massive and obvious spam, but would still do as much as they could - pushing the limit - to see what they could get away with. Personally, I still think we should raze every clan map and start over.... but not too many are fond of that idea.

So, the rule went back into debate... rinse and repeat a few times...
Not an easy process.

Some are the reasons because i am RONIN

TBH - I don't like this rule much at all.
The age old rule was basically this - all is fair in clan warfare, and clan maps are the main battlezone.
So long as a main game rule was not violated, like bug abuse. Even chat censoring was slightly relaxed.
That allowed me to use the /ignore command towards all this drama.
Sadly, not anymore.

It was asked why, this rule is coming to effect.
As the players mentioned above - this rule stems from chronic mechanic abuse.
The original idea was easy - one clan would create low level alts, with a new clan, and build up all the buildings they could to block the way.
Maybe do it again with another low clan, and maybe another...

I agree with this. Blocking and "spamming" was a big part of clan warfare tactics. It never caused any unfair gameplay, as it was only effecting the fighting clans, and it as unconvenient as PvP, which is also a part of clan warfare. At this rate, we will all be put in an arena fighting eachother with nothing but our bare hands

WARBRINGER wrote: I agree with this. Blocking and "spamming" was a big part of clan warfare tactics. It never caused any unfair gameplay....

I disagree - particularly with the word "never".
This rule is trying to differentiate between blocking, and spamming.
Blocking is fine - build a wall in front of your enemy's gate - love the idea.
Build a tower or two to slow their advance... great one too.

Filling the entire map with 50+ level 1 buildings.... (yes this was done, it's why we're here).... no... I don't agree...

Think of the griefers we do in fact have in this game. They get wind that they can do this, and your clan will wake up to it every single day.
No, I don't want that. I don't think most players do either.

The hardest part is - where to draw the line between legitimate tactic, and going out of your way to be a pain.
The extremes are easy to spot.... but the grey area in the middle is the hardest part.

MadMikael wrote:

WARBRINGER wrote: I agree with this. Blocking and "spamming" was a big part of clan warfare tactics. It never caused any unfair gameplay....

I disagree - particularly with the word "never".
This rule is trying to differentiate between blocking, and spamming.
Blocking is fine - build a wall in front of your enemy's gate - love the idea.
Build a tower or two to slow their advance... great one too.

Filling the entire map with 50+ level 1 buildings.... (yes this was done, it's why we're here).... no... I don't agree...

Think of the griefers we do in fact have in this game. They get wind that they can do this, and your clan will wake up to it every single day.
No, I don't want that. I don't think most players do either.

The hardest part is - where to draw the line between legitimate tactic, and going out of your way to be a pain.
The extremes are easy to spot.... but the grey area in the middle is the hardest part.

It took a LONG time (months) for any rule to be put in place. The clans (Not gonna name) made accounts and put clans on them JUST TO SPAM BUILDINGS Every morning I would log on and tons of buildings would be in clan space and they would siege our buildings away and we could not defend nor repair. They even made the whole map basically lag to the point of shutting down at least once
This rule, I don't like either. But it really needed to be placed IMO. Problem is, they still get away with it to an extent and pull the boundaries of this rule.

NightBaby wrote: This rule, I don't like either. But it really needed to be placed IMO. Problem is, they still get away with it to an extent and pull the boundaries of this rule.

Yes, and that's what we're doing here... discussing it. The rule is not set in stone, and may yet be changed.

MadMikael wrote:After heated discussions by many, the rule began to form - basically, we interpreted this as a mild violation of a few rules, and so, we could in fact punish. Then the debate about, what was a suitable punishment. Once we thought we had a guideline going, it began to be enforced.
But, many clanned players will push every rule to its limit to try and get the most advantage they can.

This honestly doesn't apply to only clanned players (the quote is from describing the rule formation, that NightBaby is also describing from her point of view).
This applies to many players, and many rules. The rules can and do change. I think like 5 big changes since I started, and countless small ones. That doesn't include interpretations, either... as covered in the Staff Rules. If more scenarios come up that are not covered by this rule, it can be changed.

BOMI wrote:i think this rule still allow one to make spam buildings to protect one's building like blue circle
and this rule makes GMs more busy and needs GMs private think to set where one's territory is

how about this

if someone start making tower, castle etc...

one needs more gold than before

ex) tower = 500m
castle = 1b

just my opinion

Response from DaHobbit: I completely agree. I think clans have way too much gold, and the ability to generate far more than they may ever need. Placing a building should be much more expensive. Though If Compbatant will make all level 0 buildings transparent (or ghost-like) so that players and pets can walk past them, I think it would solve a great deal of this. The building would not actually be solid until it was completely upgraded with the first level.

Some decent ideas here too.... how about this one? That would help with the clan gold issue.... and may also hinder spamming of buildings...

Oh, a side note... I saw a Hobbit run by this thread, he was carrying a can of pink spraypaint.... I think he may have been painting on posts... maybe you should reread the thread to see some new info....

MadMikael wrote:

WARBRINGER wrote: I agree with this. Blocking and "spamming" was a big part of clan warfare tactics. It never caused any unfair gameplay....

I disagree - particularly with the word "never".
This rule is trying to differentiate between blocking, and spamming.
Blocking is fine - build a wall in front of your enemy's gate - love the idea.
Build a tower or two to slow their advance... great one too.
Filling the entire map with 50+ level 1 buildings.... (yes this was done, it's why we're here).... no... I don't agree...

Now you put it that way, I see what you mean, and again, I agree

A rule is only as good as it's interpretation and enforcement allow.

building, but not improving a castle to block a tower under siege from being targeted. as soon as the castle is kkilled it is rebuild. is this considered spawning?

it seems to be against rule 2.



ps it also illustrates the advantage of being on top of map.

before i left for a year it was considered abusing a glitch to hide above a tower so you could not be targetef. like borderhiding. however it seems to be very common now and now its even used to prevent a tower from being targeted.

GM please clarify if this is allowed.